Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Durban II

John Mann: What assessment he has made of the progress made at the April preparatory meeting for Durban II on racism.

Jim Murphy: The United Kingdom wants the Durban review conference to contribute to the global fight against racism. The preparatory work is ongoing, but there should be no repeat of the disgraceful anti-Semitism that blighted events surrounding the 2001 world conference against racism.

John Mann: With Libya chairing the preparatory committee and Cuba and Iran supporting it as officers, the signs are not too good. Can the Minister assure us that if there is even the slightest whiff of anything comparable to the disgrace of the first Durban conference, the United Kingdom will not participate?

Jim Murphy: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members in all parts of the House who played such an important part in the all-party inquiry into anti-Semitism. My hon. Friend is right that there have been dreadful comments and behaviour of an anti-Semitic nature in previous gatherings of that type. I wish to be clear that the UK Government will play no part in a gathering that displays such behaviour. We will continue to work to make sure that the conference is a success, but we will play no part in an international conference that exhibits the degree of anti-Semitism that was disgracefully on view on the previous occasion.

Tim Boswell: Although the Minister's comments are welcome, and his remarks about the anti-Semitism group are equally welcome, does he agree that it is interesting that Canada, whose Government are one of the most responsible and friendly with whom we ever have dealings, has already decided not to attend the conference? Is he in touch with the Canadian Government about their reasons for doing so?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman was another important contributor to the all-party inquiry and it is right to put that on record. We are in touch with international partners on this serious issue. One of the reasons why the Canadian Government withdrew, as I understand it, is that unacceptable conditions were placed on a Jewish non-governmental organisation from Canada, initiated by the Iranian authorities. We continue to discuss that with Canada and other international partners and that dialogue will continue. If it gets to a point that we come to the view that the conference cannot be a success, the option of withdrawal from the conference remains available to us.

Iranian Nuclear Programme

David Jones: If he will make a statement on the Iranian nuclear programme.

David Miliband: Iran continues to enrich uranium and carry out heavy water-related projects in defiance of four UN Security Council resolutions requesting it to stop. We urge Iran to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, to implement the additional protocol that it has signed with the agency, to respond to the serious questions that the agency has put to Iran on weaponisation, and of course to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. On 2 May, I chaired a meeting of my E3 plus 3 colleagues to agree a refreshed offer to Iran as part of our dual track strategy to persuade Iran to comply with its international obligations. That will soon be transmitted to the Government of Iran.

David Jones: Much of the west's knowledge of the Iranian nuclear programme is the product of information passed to it by the People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran, most recently in respect of the nuclear warhead facility at Khojir. Given the historic helpfulness of the PMOI to the west and given also the trenchantly expressed judgment of the Court of Appeal last week, can the Foreign Secretary please say when the Government will make a statement to the House as to the continued proscription of the organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000?  [Interruption.]

David Miliband: We were deeply disappointed by the result, given the well documented history of terrorist attacks involving the MEK. I am happy to give details. It explicitly claimed responsibility for a number of serious acts of terrorism on Iranian interests for a number of years.  [Interruption.] It has never publicly given up violence and gave up its arms only in the face of overwhelming military might in Iraq in 2003.  [Interruption.] None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will be pleased to hear that we will of course abide by the ruling of the court, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will lay an order before Parliament in the next few weeks to take forward that judgment.

Mike Gapes: The Foreign Secretary is aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee published a report a few months ago on the situation on Iran. In that report we expressed concern that the current strategy to prevent the Iranian regime from developing a nuclear weapon is not very successful. Does the Foreign Secretary share the Committee's view that on present trends Iran could have such a breakout capability in about seven or eight years? What will the Government, with their international partners, do over the coming months and years to make sure that that does not happen?

David Miliband: I am obviously not going to comment on intelligence—ours or others'—in respect of the timeline for the Iranian nuclear programme. However, the sense of importance that came through in the Foreign Affairs Committee report is shared by the Government and by our partners as well. Not only the three European countries and the United States, but Russia and China are part of a coalition that sees the dangers of a nuclear arms race in the middle east, which all sane people would see as a danger.
	Our quarrel is not with the people of Iran, which is a country of huge civilisation and education; in the end, our quarrel is not with Iran's rights under the non-proliferation regime, which ultimately include the right to civilian nuclear power. Our quarrel is with the responsibilities, or the lack of responsibility, exercised by the regime. That is why it is important that we take forward at each stage the dual track strategy. There is the offer to Iran of economic, scientific and cultural co-operation, but if it refuses to co-operate with the international community, it is right that sanctions be in place.

Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that last year's United States national intelligence estimate that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 was deeply misleading, because it referred only to warhead production? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the real threat is from the uranium enrichment programme, which, far from slowing down, has been accelerated by the Iranians in recent months? Will he do all in his power to ensure that that point is fully understood, both by public opinion in this country and at the United Nations?

David Miliband: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting from my article in the  Financial Times that appeared after the national intelligence estimate came out, but I certainly echo entirely what he has said. A very important confusion was created by the national intelligence estimate report about the difference between, on the one hand, weaponisation, and on the other, the three processes—above all, the uranium enrichment process—that are important for building a nuclear weapon.
	It is precisely the dangers of the expanded uranium enrichment programme that have motivated successive United Nations Security Council resolutions that have demanded the suspension of that programme. Last year, the E3 plus 3 put forward a proposal for a "freeze for freeze"—a freeze on sanctions in response to a freeze on the uranium enrichment programme. We are refreshing our offer, but are absolutely clear that underlying it is a determination to ensure that Iran fulfils its responsibilities as well as exerts its rights under the NPT.

Quentin Davies: What is the best estimate available to my right hon. Friend on the number of centrifuges available to the Iranians for uranium enrichment at present? Where are those centrifuges coming from?

David Miliband: I am not going to comment on our estimate of the number of centrifuges. My hon. Friend will have seen President Ahmadinejad's claim—I repeat that it is a claim—that 3,000 centrifuges have been increased to 6,000 centrifuges. As I say, that is his claim. I am afraid that I am not able to go into any details on their origins, but obviously we are working across all parts of the international community to staunch the flow not only of equipment, but of personnel and ideas.

Michael Ancram: Following on from the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he sets more store by the United States intelligence community's assessment of Iran's nuclear capability, to which he has referred, or by the very much more bullish assessment made by Israeli intelligence, on which he had a report this week?

David Miliband: What is bullish and what is bearish in this context I will not go into. What I rely on are British intelligence estimates. That is the right basis for policy— [ Interruption. ] I am very, very surprised to see Opposition Members querying the exceptional quality of British intelligence.  [ Interruption. ] I might expect the Liberal Democrats to denigrate the work of public servants, but I will not do that. What is important is that the international community is united in recognising that the problem is serious and that it is not a question of pursuing a vendetta against the people of Iran, or even the regime of Iran. We are seeking a change in behaviour, not a change in the regime. It is right that we devote ourselves diplomatically to achieving that end.

Andrew Miller: The centrifuges are based on a design stolen by A.Q. Khan; that is how the Iranians acquired them. May I clarify something with my right hon. Friend? Are the use of the centrifuges or the lack of inspection agreements at the core of the problem? How is he proposing to change the inspection regime to ensure that although Iran can continue with a nuclear power programme if it wants to, nuclear weapons conventions will be protected?

David Miliband: There are three charges against the Iranian regime: first, in relation to its refusal to comply with UN Security Council resolutions in respect of uranium enrichment; secondly, in respect of IAEA demands for full information on previous programmes, not just the P1 but the P2 programme—I apologise for going into the detail—and thirdly, there is the question of the additional protocol, which the IAEA has demanded that Iran lives up to. These are not my demands; they are demands that have been made by the international community, unanimously on successive occasions, and by the International Atomic Energy Authority—[Hon. Members: "Agency."] I am sorry; I am grateful for the correction. Living within the bounds of UN and IAEA requirements is what we ask of the Government of Iran. I should also add that we are asking nothing more of them than to live within boundaries that are set for every other country; that is a point that we can all do well to remind people of, in Iran and more widely.

David Lidington: Can the Foreign Secretary give us a clear assurance that if Iran were now to reject the new offer that he has described to the House, the sanctions against Iranian oil and gas, which the Prime Minister promised as long ago as last November, will finally be imposed? Does he agree, too, that with Lebanese Ministers alleging that Iranian republican guards have been deployed and are fighting on the streets of Beirut, the need for effective pressure on the Iranian regime really is urgent?

David Miliband: I certainly reaffirm our commitment to take this up at European level. We said that we would pursue these actions at the European level, because that is the right place to do it, and we will certainly continue to do so. It is worth reporting to the House that the latest figures for the UK's action alone show that £513 million of Iranian assets have been frozen, and EU trade with Iran is down 34 per cent. in the year to March 2007.
	In respect of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, which takes us into new territory, all I can say is that I spoke to the Prime Minister of Lebanon on Friday, discussed the very serious situation there, and expressed my total support for his Government in seeking to maintain the integrity and democratic legitimacy of the Government of Lebanon. I hope that in topical questions I may be able to say more about last night's phone call of the Friends of Lebanon group, which involves 12 countries around the world, mainly from the region. I will be happy to report on that to the House.

Guatemala

Kelvin Hopkins: What recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Guatemala; and if he will make a statement.

Meg Munn: We are encouraged by Guatemala's participation in the United Nations universal periodic review of human rights. As part of this process, the UK has raised its ongoing concerns about the human rights situation in Guatemala—in particular, widespread impunity, child rights, human rights defenders and the rise in murders of girls and women. I raised these issues with the Guatemalan Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Vice-Minister, during my recent visit.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will be aware that there were 6,000 murders in Guatemala last year, which is equivalent to 28,000 murders in a country the size of Britain. There are terrible problems with policing and the justice system in that country. Will she comment on the recent Bill on the death penalty vetoed by President Colom?

Meg Munn: Certainly—my hon. Friend is absolutely right about these concerns. We have also been putting in support for training of police officers. The UK worked with EU partners and we were successful in lobbying President Colom to veto the recent law that the congress had passed seeking to restore the death penalty. I stressed with the Guatemalan Minister for Foreign Affairs the importance of finally abolishing the death penalty. I can assure my hon. Friend that the UK and the EU will continue to work towards the abolition of that in its entirety.

Mark Pritchard: Does the Minister agree that if the new President of Guatemala, �lvaro Colom, is serious about human rights, he will deal with the corruption in the judiciary, in the army and in some parts of the Government, and he will introduce the measures that he said he would introduce prior to his election as President to deal with what is perhaps Latin America's worst human rights record?

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman raises important points. During my visit in April, I had a frank discussion with Ministers about their unacceptable human rights position. They insisted that the Colom Government would work energetically to improve matters, but clearly those good intentions need to be put into action and we will continue to press the Guatemalan Government on the fact that good human rights are essential to good democracy.

Jeremy Corbyn: I would like to thank the Minister for visiting Guatemala and for raising human rights concerns with the Government there. She must be aware of the marginalisation of women, particularly non-Spanish speaking women, in society; they have little access to justice or human rights and are fearful of the army and the police in all that they do. Is there anything that she can do by way of providing practical or financial support to human rights defenders and human rights advocates, and training programmes for them, so that they can try to defend themselves legally against unaccountable forces?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are the precise issues that we raised. The Department for International Development has committed 60,000 in support of a United Nations anti-impunity commission in Guatemala, and there is a range of other support for projects there. Perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend in greater detail on that.

Afghanistan

Adrian Bailey: What progress the Government have made in co-ordinating the new Government of Helmand in Afghanistan.

David Miliband: The UK works to support the Government of Afghanistan at both national and provincial levels through an extensive, co-ordinated programme of development assistance and military support, as well as diplomatic activity. That includes providing support to the local government structures in Helmand. We have frequent and wide-ranging contacts with Governor Mangal of Helmandthe new governoras well as with the independent directorate of local governance, working together to extend governance and the provision of services in the province.

Adrian Bailey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Given the crucial importance to the whole world of a stable and democratic Government in Afghanistan, can he outline the progress being made in the international community to ensure better co-ordination of economic, military and political assistance to the Government?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are now 46 countries in Afghanistan, and the danger is that the Government of Afghanistan spend all their time in a series of bilateral meetings with each of those Governments instead of getting on with the business of running Afghanistan. The appointment of Mr. Kai Eide as the new UN Secretary-General's representative in Afghanistan is a major opportunity. My meetings with him suggest that he is a serious figure who has the confidence of all sides, and he will be able to play a co-ordination role at national level as well as the rallying role in capitals around the world that is so important.

Mark Harper: What does the Foreign Secretary think the new Secretary-General's representative will be able to do about improving the security situation in Helmand province, which is where our armed forces are primarily deployed? When will we see some improvement in the situation for our security forces?

David Miliband: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the first responsibility for security after the Afghan Government lies with the commander of the international security assistance force, General McNeill. The responsibility of Mr. Eide, the UN Secretary-General's representative, is to ensure that civilian work matches that military activity properly. The two are two sides of the same coin.
	One indicator of improved security in Helmand is the fact that drug production is falling so fast. That also reflects the rising wheat price, which is encouraging farmers to go into farming wheat. In a way, that is a leading indicator of security. That is not to say, however, that our forces do not face serious danger every day that they are doing work. Kai Eide's appointment, and his professed determination to get to grips with policing issues as a counterpart to the military campaign, is essential. It is in respect of policing that we hope to see the greatest improvement over the next couple of years.

Khalid Mahmood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the long term the only way to resolve issues in Afghanistan is through a greater involvement of the Afghani military and police, and the civil structure? The quicker that we establish those relationships, the quicker we can deal with those issues.

David Miliband: Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He will also appreciate that a major contribution will be to ensure that complementary strategies are pursued on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border. The fact that the new Pakistani Government have made a commitment to ensure that they tackle terrorism on their side of the border is the sort of activity that will help the Afghans, and get us out of the Afghan-Pakistan blame game, which has too often typified relations between those two countries.

Gregory Campbell: Can the Foreign Secretary outline whether there are any plans to allow the Territorial Army personnel who are currently serving in Afghanistan to join in the commemorations of the centenary of that fine and upstanding organisation?

David Miliband: I have to apologise to the hon. Gentleman because I do not know the answer, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence writes to him as soon as possible with the answer to his question.

Peter Tapsell: How does the Foreign Secretary account for President Karzai's hostility to British political advances in Helmand province when our troops are fighting so bravely there to defend his interests?

David Miliband: I have discussed President Karzai's alleged hostility with him directly on three occasions. He denies any hostility and insists that he has been misquoted in the allegations that have been made against him. He also insists that he has nothing but admiration for the commitment of British forces, and that of the British people in supporting the role of British civilians and British armed forces in that country.

Nicholas Soames: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is important that the Department for International Development works more closely with British military forces on the ground? It is a widely held view by all those who have served in Afghanistan that the Department for International Development, although it does a good job, could do much more if it would swallow the nonsense about not working with people in uniform.

David Miliband: I have talked in Helmand to soldiers and representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. I do not want to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's allegations but I want to take collective responsibility for the activities of FCO and DFID staff. There is no question but that we need to ensure better civilian-military co-operation. I hope that he agrees that the appointment of a civilian headas it happens, from the FCOof the Helmand provincial reconstruction team, who takes office next month, will be the symbol of the proper, high quality civilian-military co-operation that he and I agree is essential.

Keith Simpson: The Foreign Secretary knows about the complexities of co-ordinating policy in Helmand. What is the Foreign Office view, especially given the new appointment, of conducting negotiations with those elements of the Taliban who may have been active in violence but are now prepared for a more peaceful solution? How will he persuade President Karzai of the importance of such a subtle approach?

David Miliband: The position is clear and shared by President Karzai and the British Government. I sat with the US Secretary of State in President Karzai's office in Kabul in February, discussing the reconciliation programme. I describe it as a reconciliation programme rather than a negotiation programme for the simple reason that those members of the Taliban who are willing to live by constitutional rules are welcome to do so, and the Government of Afghanistan will bring them into the political system. In that sense, it is not a negotiationthe red lines are clear. Recent evidence from Musa Qala shows that there is a genuine opportunity to bring members of the Taliban, who are not ideologically convinced but make a contingent decision about which side to back, into the mainstream and persuade them that that is where they have the most stable and prosperous future. We are determined to do that.

China

Alistair Burt: If he will make a statement on the UK's relations with the People's Republic of China.

Meg Munn: In light of the recent devastating earthquake in China, I am sure that I speak for the House in extending our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of all those affected. I commend the Chinese Government for their rapid and efficient response to the crisis.
	Our relationship with China is strong and growing. The Government believe that engagement with China is firmly in the UK's national interest.
	China's development offers opportunities for co-operation and advancement on key global challenges. Our engagement allows us to tackle all issues with China, including human rights and internal reform.

Alistair Burt: I am sure that the House would wish to be associated with the Under-Secretary's sentiments about the Chinese earthquake. The earth's fragility has been awesomely demonstrated through the recent tragic events in south-east Asia, as has the need for the world to rely on itself and our mutual dependence for aid and assistance. Does the Under-Secretary believe that, in the medium term, those events might help China revisit its obligations on issues such as carbon emissions? Much more urgently in the short term, does she believe that China's experience of tragedy today will ensure that it urges the Burmese Government this afternoon to do all they can to allow aid and assistance in immediately, given that it is waiting on the borders and needed to deal with Burma's tragedy?

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made that point when he spoke to his counterpart in China just before this Question Time. I understand that China is now requesting international support for the situation. We know that the position in China is much better than in Burma. There is much more infrastructure and the Chinese Government are much more capable of supporting people. We know that the situation in Burma is dreadful. Without the help and support being readily offered by the international community, many more people will die. We will continue to urge China, as well other countries in the region, to make those points to the Burmese Government. This is not a political issue; it is a humanitarian issue. On climate change, we are in discussions with the Chinese on the development of technology. We will continue to work on those issues, which affect us all and on which we need that international co-operation.

Ann Clwyd: The Foreign Secretary has used strong words on the subject of Burma and the responsibilities of other countries, such as China, to assist in getting humanitarian aid instantlynot in a few daysto Burma. The United Nations has established the principles of the right to intervene and the responsibility to protect. We chair the Security Council; surely we can do more than we are now.

Meg Munn: We will support any and all activities that will take the matter forward and get that aid into Burma. It is clear that the US and the European countries on the Security Council are ready to move the issues forward. We are pressing to get that aid in. What is important is not just the physical aid, which is already under great pressure, but the need for people who can distribute it. There are development workers on the ground, but they are not disaster relief experts. We need disaster relief experts there. Burma needs to let those people in now.

Andrew MacKay: The Minister has just told the House that the Government's relationship with China is strong and growing. Will she also tell us what action the Foreign Secretary has taken in expressing our concerns to the Chinese Government that that arms shipment should never have been sent to Durban? It was only as a result of the brave decision of the dockers in Durban that that shipment did not go to Zimbabwe, where it would have been used by a vile regime.

Meg Munn: I am sure that we all applaud the stance taken by the dockers in preventing that shipment, which demonstrates the importance of civil society acting in such situations. We on the Labour Benches support the role of trade unions in that. We are working for an international arms embargo to Zimbabwe and will continue to do so.

Brian Jenkins: Following the previous question, will we use our good offices with China to express the disquiet felt throughout the House and the country about China not only training but arming regimes all across Africa?

Meg Munn: We need to recognise that China can choose to play a positive role in the world, too. We know that China is putting a great deal of aid into Africa. We of course express our concerns about human rights and negative actions, and through our engagement with China we are unable to do so better.

Angus Robertson: I add the condolences of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru to the people of China on the terrible circumstances of the earthquake. The Minister used the same words as the Red Cross in Beijing today to describe the response therethe Red Cross said that it was swift and very efficient. Should the Burmese Government not pursue the same course of action? What will the Minister and her EU colleagues do in concrete terms to persuade them to emulate the Chinese approach?

Meg Munn: Of coursethat is exactly what should happen and that is what we are doing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is at the EU Development Ministers meeting doing precisely that. The problem is that the Burmese Government are failing to grant visas for the aid workers to enter. The world is ready to help. This is not a political situation; it is a humanitarian disaster. The Burmese Government need to grant those visas and let people in, so that they can begin to save lives.

Nicholas Winterton: I shall shortly visit Taiwan to attend the inauguration of the new, democratically elected President of that country. What pressure are the Government bringing to bear on the People's Republic of China to live in peaceful co-existence with its small neighbour and to remove the 1,000 missiles that are directed from mainland China towards Taiwan?

Meg Munn: It has been Government policy for a long time to support a one China policy, and our position on Taiwan is well known and has not changed. However, we certainly look to both sides to avoid unilateral measures that raise tensions across the straits, and we will continue to engage in confidence-building measures. In that respect, I support what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Bosnia (EU Accession)

Don Touhig: What recent discussions he has had with the EU high representative to Bosnia on Bosnian accession to the EU.

Jim Murphy: I met High Representative Lajck on 18 March in Sarajevo. I discussed with him the key reforms needed for Bosnia to move towards EU membership and reaffirmed the UK's support for his efforts to uphold the Dayton peace agreement.

Don Touhig: Following the welcome demonstration by the Serbian people in Sunday's general election that they want closer links with the European Union, will my hon. Friend ensure that the accession of the Balkan countries, and of Bosnia in particular, remains a high priority in the European Union, so that we can help to contribute to bringing peace and stability to that still-troubled part of Europe?

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that the result of the election in Serbia was a clear demonstration of the continuing European aspirations of the population of that country. We should acknowledge and celebrate that fact. He is also right to say that the area is recovering from the vile ethnic cleansing of recent years. The United Kingdom Government will do all that they can to support the expansion of the European Union into the western Balkans. It is also in our strategic self-interest to do so.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the priorities of the people of Bosnia are focused on job creation and on securing further improvements in their standard of living. What contribution does he think that members of the EU could make towards ensuring that the voices of the people of Bosnia are properly heard by their Government at every level?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. The real need for economic development was made clear to me when I met representatives of the Bosnian, Croat and Serb communities in Bosnia. The signing of the stabilisation agreement with the European Union over the next few weeks will be crucial as it will send a clear signal that all 27 EU countries are willing to support Bosnia's development and economy. In return, Bosnia will of course have to undertake significant structural domestic reform.

Somalia

Tony Lloyd: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the UN and other international organisations in the process of peace and reconstruction in Somalia.

Meg Munn: We support reconciliation talks, arranged by the special representative of the UN Secretary-General, due to begin this month, between representatives of the Somali transitional Government and the opposition Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia. We remain very concerned by the general humanitarian and security situation in Somalia. We are working hard within the UN Security Council for improvements, including a new resolution addressing the political, humanitarian and security needs.

Tony Lloyd: I am sure that a United Nations Security Council resolution would be very welcome, but does my hon. Friend not agree that the world has neglected Somalia, to all our costs? We know the lessons of the failed state in Afghanistan, and we are aware of the potential for Islamic radicalisation in Somalia. Because of our resident Somali population, Britain of all countries has a huge interest in creating stability in Somalia. Can we ensure that the EU addresses the lack of capacity of African agencies such as the African Union, and that we now put real effort into bringing this internal conflict to an end?

Meg Munn: I know that my hon. Friend has long taken an interest in this area, and he is absolutely right to point out the importance of the European Union in this regard. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the EU has done a great deal. It has contributed 15 million to the African Union mission, and it is engaging with the Opposition. It has contacts within civil society to try to develop its role in the country, and it is responding to the humanitarian problems that arise there. I am sure that we will continue to press for this engagement through the European Union as well as through the United Nations.

Tony Baldry: The Minister will be aware that the African regional press testifies that food prices in Somalia are skyrocketing, which means that families have to buy less food or less nutritious food, leading to malnourishment and malnutrition. Does not that present a massive task for the international community and the World Food Programme? Will the Minister share with the House the results of the welcome summit that the Prime Minister recently held at No. 10 on the rises in international food prices? As has been said, Somalia will become a humanitarian disaster area if the international community does not act in the near future.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points and I appreciate the tone in which he does so. We are giving a lot of humanitarian aid to Somalia; we are the second largest bilateral donor. Of course, the humanitarian situation will improve only if the political situation improves. A genuine political process is under way and we have to put our support behind it. In view of the history of Somalia, it is easy to be discouraged, but for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman raisesthe concerns of the population and the continuing pressure of rising food priceswe must ensure that this political process moves forward, if at all possible, in order to bring about greater stability in the area.

Darfur

Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Darfur.

Meg Munn: There has been little movement in the Darfur political process because of fragmentation among rebel groups and continued violence. The Prime Minister has offered further UK support for international efforts, including a meeting in the UK, if it would help revitalise the process. We are exploring the scope for this with the United Nations, the African Union, Sudan's neighbours and international partners, the Government of Sudan and movements in Darfur.

Desmond Swayne: The Secretary-General's most recent report states that in, one month alone, the air raids of the Government of Sudan have killed 200 civilians and displaced 10,000. Their impounding of vital equipment, blocking of the deployment of contingents and withholding permissions for 15 helicopters have resulted in less than a quarter of the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur forces being deployed. Is it not time that we had a serious review of the sanctions regime?

Meg Munn: We rightly discuss Darfur and Sudan every month at parliamentary questions and it is, of course, extremely disappointing and frustrating when the situation does not improve. Indeed, it is a matter not just of the aerial bombings by the Government of Sudan but of recent incursions by rebel groups that have made the problem even more difficult. The fighting must stop and the talking start. Sanctions might have a role to play, but the serious issue is the need for the fighting to stop so that proper talks can begin.

Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the warrants issued by the International Criminal Court in respect of events in Darfur should still be pursuedand pursued urgently?

Meg Munn: Yes, I agree that they should be pursued. We need to do everything we can to bring about peace in Darfur, and securing proper justice and the end of impunity is part of that process.

Ministerial Meetings

Mark Lazarowicz: When he expects to meet the new Foreign Minister of Italy.

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the new Italian Foreign Minister designate, Mr. Franco Frattini, on 16 April to congratulate him on his appointment. Both my right hon. Friend and I look forward to meeting our new counterparts in the very near future.

Mark Lazarowicz: The sight of supporters of the new right-wing nationalist Government in Italy celebrating their victory with fascist salutes and shouts of Duce was not exactly a good advert for Italy throughout the world. When my hon. Friend has the opportunity to meet the new Foreign Minister, will he discuss with him the importance of the Governments across Europe working together to tackle xenophobia and racism?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that all European Governmentsin fact, all Governments across the worldhave a responsibility to demonstrate by their actions as well as their words their revulsion at the sentiment represented by those fascists and extreme right-wing politicians. We rightly take the view, however, that the Italian Government as they are and will be constituted will, as a modern democratic European state, take that responsibility very seriously indeed.

Mark Francois: When the Minister meets the Foreign Minister of the newly elected centre-right Administration in Italy, one of the issues that I am sure they are bound to discuss is the Lisbon treaty and its ratification. When they do meet, will the Minister confirm to his Italian counterpart that if Ireland votes no on 12 June, the British Government will respect that decision and there will be no adverse consequences for Ireland were the people of Ireland to make such a choice?

Jim Murphy: Only the hon. Gentleman could turn a question about the new Italian Government into a question about the Lisbon treaty referendum in the Republic of Ireland.  [Interruption.] He takes it as a compliment, but I take it as a statement of the modern Conservative party and its Europhobia gone mad, running rampant through the middle of the party. When I am in Italy, as I hope to be next week, I will search very hard for a political party anywhere near the Italian mainstream that shares the British Conservative party's view of Europe. As I have reflected before, there are literally dozens of conservative parties in Italy and not one of them shares his obsession with, and dislike of, all things European.

Denis MacShane: May I calm things down a bit? Clearly we must all be sensitive to the election of high officials with whom we do not agree. They might use words such as piccaninnies or xenophobic language, but they are elected, and that is it. Foreign Minister Frattini, as a former Foreign Minister, worked very constructively with this country, and as the EU Commissioner on Interior Affairs he worked constructively, sensitively and tolerantly. Italy is an important country. Its diplomatic service is first-rate. We should construct a positive relationship with Mr. Frattini. After all, the centre-right parties of Europe can only talk to this party in power; they do not talk to the rubbish over there.

Jim Murphy: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should use temperate language. May I also say that one dayperhaps one dayI will get a brief supplementary question from the right hon. Gentleman?

Jim Murphy: I have always considered my right hon. Friend in the role of a conciliator, both here and elsewhere, and towards the end of his question he showed just why.
	On the specific points raised, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have common cause with the Italian Government and Italy on so many big strategic interests that face our worldclimate change, international terrorism, and concerted and co-ordinated work on the migration of people across the planet. We have a packed agenda of common concerns with our colleagues in Italy, and we look forward to holding that conversation in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker: We are into injury time. I call Willie Rennie.

Middle East

Willie Rennie: What recent discussions he has had with Quartet representative, Tony Blair, on Gaza and the middle east road map.

David Miliband: We met on 1 and 2 May to talk about the middle east peace process and discuss the situation in Gaza. The ad hoc liaison committee meeting in London kicked off a critical six to eight week period for the middle east peace process, and it is vital that the practical progress in the negotiations is matched by improvement of the situation on the ground.

Willie Rennie: Is it not clear that without an improvement in the economic and humanitarian conditions within Gaza, we are not going to see any lasting chances of peace in the near future? Surely the road map is coming to the end of its life and we should reappraise it so that we can work with our EU partners and the Quartet to bring some lasting chances of peace to the region.

David Miliband: I entirely agree that the humanitarian situation in Gaza needs to be improved, but I plead with the hon. Gentleman not to start throwing out the road map and the Annapolis process now. This is a critical six to eight week period. President Bush is, I think, going to the region tomorrow, the Bethlehem investors conference is taking place the week after next, and the Germans are taking a lead on security sector reform to support the Palestinian Authority. For seven years, we have not had a process: now we have one, for goodness' sake, let us not lose it at this stage.

Topical Questions

George Mudie: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Miliband: The whole House will be aware that as we debate here today people are dying by the score in Burma, and the Burmese regime are unconscionably holding up the supply of foreign aid. Hon. Members throughout the House will share my anger that any Government could show such a callous disregard for their responsibility towards their own citizens.
	The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that Britain would do everything possible to make a difference. We have pledged 5 million of assistance, a United Kingdom aid flight has left for Burma and more are planned for this week, and a team from the Department for International Development is on the ground there. We are examining all options for getting the aid through, and getting the message through to the Burmese regime that its obstructionism is completely intolerable. Over the past 12 days we have supported the use of any and all United Nations action that will help, and we will continue to do so. The only test is whether that action saves lives in Burma.

George Mudie: The Secretary of State will share the House's deep sadness about the terrible consequences of the earthquake in China. As he knows, following earthquakes specific aid is required, and is required quickly. Can he assure us that the Foreign Office is offering aid and discussing what aid is necessary and relevant? Can he also assure us that the Foreign Office is participating in the co-ordination of aid so that it arrives quickly and relevantly?

David Miliband: I am happy to say that just before I came here today I had a long conversation with the Chinese Foreign Minister about, among other things, the Chinese response to the disaster, which in many ways has been exemplary. I obviously inquired about the position of British nationals, about which we are concerned, and about offers of assistance. I am pleased to say that the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has now made it clear that the country is open to cash donations and humanitarian help, and we shall ensure that that is given maximum publicity. At present, as I have said, the Chinese Government are handling the matter in an exemplary fashion, but I think that this is an opportunity for people to come together at a difficult time.

William Hague: I support what the Foreign Secretary has said about the gravity of the situation in Burma and the extraordinary callousness of the Burmese regime. Will he take up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, that the United Nations Secretary-General go to Rangoon on behalf of the whole international community to urge the regime to provide immediate, unfettered access for all international relief?
	While aid can be delivered with great effectiveness only with the co-ordination of the Burmese Government, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the international community has a responsibility to consider any other options? He just mentioned that the Government were considering all options for delivering more help to people in such desperate circumstances. What assessment has he made of the viability of direct aid drops? What plans exist for such drops, and when would they be put into effect?

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman asks about the role of the United Nations Secretary-General. For some time we have discussed with him the propositionoriginally advanced, I believe, by this country in New Yorkthat he should go there himself. The statement that he issued yesterday was very helpful and positive, and suggested the degree of engagement that is necessary. We know from what happened in 2004 that the role of the UN Secretary-General in bringing people together can be very important.
	I chose the phrase any and all options deliberately, to make it clear that we are supporting any and all action at the United Nations. As for aid drops, I think it best to quote what has been said by the World Food Programme. It does not rule out such action, and it would be quite wrong to do so, but it does say that
	it's dangerous and potentially counter-productive if you carry out air drops of food or assistance without the proper set-up on the ground.
	Oxfam, which has a long history in this area, says:
	Food and mosquito nets cannot be targeted at the most vulnerable... clean water systems and safe sanitation cannot be dropped from the sky.
	It also says:
	The biggest risk is that... air-drops will be a distraction from what is really neededa highly effective aid operation on the ground.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to want to be certain that all options are being considered, and I assure him that they are. However, the best option by a long way is for the Burmese Government to stand up to their responsibilities.
	Let me raise another matter on which I am sure there is cross-party agreement. We have been emphasising the important role of the Association of South East Asian Nations. The neighbouring countries that will inevitably have to provide the basis for any sort of humanitarian or military help will play a critical part, which is why we have been talking directly to ASEAN countries on the telephone and in person through ambassadors in capitals. I am sure that that action is supported throughout the House.

William Hague: May I emphatically support what the Foreign Secretary says about the ASEAN countries, and may I turn his mind to another tragic situation: Zimbabwe? Given the violence and intimidation, orchestrated by the Mugabe regime's thugs, across Zimbabwe, will he join me in commending the bravery of the Opposition activists in their conduct since the elections, for which some have already paid with their lives, and their bravery in contesting a second round that may be overshadowed by violence and devoid of transparency? The regime has indicated that it will not accept international observers to oversee the poll. Can the Foreign Secretary hold out any prospect of southern African nations making a decisive effort to change that, so that the efforts of Mugabe to rig and intimidate in this way can at least partly be constrained?

David Miliband: Yes, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. The bravery is exemplary, and support from the international community is much needed. It is true that the Opposition have not yet won the presidential election, but Mugabe has not been able to claim victory, and that is very significant in itself. I agree that monitors are essential. I was very pleased to hear from the Ghanaian Foreign Minister in person yesterday, and by e-gram from the Tanzanian Foreign Minister, of Southern African Development Community countries taking their responsibilities seriously. I also believe there is a role for Caribbean countries in supplementing the observer mission from the SADC countries, so that there are a greater number of observers on the ground to ensure that, in dreadful circumstances, some sort of freedom is available for people to cast their votes.

Dawn Butler: What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of Kosovo's independence, and what is the UK doing to support Kosovo?

Jim Murphy: Forty-one countries have so far recognised the independence of Kosovo, including all the G7 nations and 20 countries of the European Union. The United Kingdom is, of course, among that number, supporting Kosovo's independence based on the Ahtisaari plan. That is about ensuring that there is no break-up of Kosovo and maintaining territorial integrity, and it is also about ensuring that the forthcoming international donors conference is a success, so that the new Government in Kosovo can kick-start the economy effectively.

Edward Davey: The Foreign Secretary has spoken eloquently against the malign neglect of the Burmese Government in respect of foreign aid. I recognise that Ministers have been working hard on this issue, but how does he explain the delays in getting British Government aid into Burma, when aid from the American, French, Indian, Swedish, Spanish, Greek, Chinese and Russian Governments has arrived, not to mention aid from the World Food Programme and non-governmental organisations such as the Red Cross and Save the Children? If other countries and organisations have managed to get aid in despite the problems with the Burmese junta, why did the first British Government aid plane arrive only today?

David Miliband: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind words, and the answer lies at the door of the Burmese Government, who have placed so many obstacles in the way of foreign aid, and of foreign aid workers, who are essential to ensure that the aid is delivered to the people who need it, not to support the regime.

Chris Mole: Will the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of the recent elections in Serbia?

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has today spoken to the Foreign Minister of Serbia, Mr. Jeremic, to congratulate him and his party, For a European Serbia, which is now the largest party after the elections in Serbia. It is clear that Serbia now has a European future. The 27 countries of the European Union have said that very clearly, and have signed up to a new agreement with Serbia. With that, of course, comes responsibility for Serbia, in particular adherence to its responsibility to bring to justice in The Hague those alleged war criminals, Mladic and Karadzic, and we will continue to press the Serbian authorities on that matter.

Andy Reed: Obviously, the world's attention has moved on from Kenya, despite the fact that last week the new Kenyan Government, with 40 new members from both the Opposition side and the previous Government, were formed. What is the Government's assessment of the viability of that Cabinet, and what assistance is being given to ensure that the democratic process wins in this process, despite all the problems Kenya has had over the past few weeks?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend is right: that has slipped from the front pages. However, he is also right to say that a grand Government coalition has now been formed and that common sense has prevailed. Clearly, the imperative is for Kenya's leaders to implement the power-sharing agreement. In terms of our support, the Secretary of State for International Development will reinforce our message about the UK's commitment to this process when he visits Kenya next week.

Paul Keetch: The Foreign Office was rightly congratulated on its support following the tsunami; it provided consular support on the scene and at home. Today, I received a message from a constituent whose parents from Hereford are missing in China. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that consular support will be available not only in China, but at the Foreign Office in London to ensure that families are kept abreast of the situations of missing British nationals?

David Miliband: Yes, I can. Our ambassador is on his way to the main scene of the earthquake disaster, we have a consular team in place and we have investigations going on into all those whom we know are missing. I am happy to have a word with the hon. Gentleman straight after this, and we will get the details of his constituent. I am pleased to tell him that the Chinese Foreign Minister, to whom I spoke just before questions, wanted to talk to me about what his Government were determined to do to maximise the openness with which the Chinese authorities investigated any and all suggestions of missing people. I hope that that will bring some relief to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who are doubtless very worried about the situation.

Tony Lloyd: In the context of the welcome co-operation between the United Kingdom and China, will my right hon. Friend impress on the Chinese the fact that our humanitarian efforts would be properly amplified if China were to bring considerable pressure on Burma to ensure that the Burmese opened up facilities to humanitarian agencies there?

David Miliband: Yes, I shall. The regional powers, notably China, have an immensely important role to play not only in facilitating practical support on the ground but in applying political pressure on a Burmese regime who have so far been closed to reason. It is obviously essential that we continue the links with the Chinese Government to ensure that they understand the strength of feeling across British political parties and across Britain about the need to respond to what is becoming a man-made catastrophe.

Bernard Jenkin: May I invite the Foreign Secretary to give his latest assessment of the situation in the Lebanon? May I also ask him to reassure us that military preparations are being made to evacuate 5,000 British citizens and their dependants, if necessary, and that a decision on that will be made early enough, before the situation deteriorates and an armed force is required to land in the Lebanon to effect such an evacuation?

David Miliband: The attempt to disrupt and disable the Government of the Lebanonthe full frontal challenge to that Government from Hezbollahis, or should be, completely unacceptable to the whole international community. Last night's Friends of Lebanon discussion, which was convened by Saudi Arabia and the United States and which included the United Kingdom, brought a strong statement of condemnation of the activities of Hezbollah and its supporters from a wide range of viewpoints. I am happy to associate myself with that. Practical support must be not only military, but economic and political support for the existing Government of Fouad Siniora. I shall continue to offer that political support, as I did to him personally on Friday.

David Drew: The most worrying aspect of last weekend's Justice for Equality Movement-inspired attacks on Omdurman in the Sudan was that they appeared very much to be tit-for-tat attacks mounted in response to the attempt to remove President Deby from Chad. What assurances can my colleagues give that they will talk to the Governments in Khartoum and in Chad to ensure that there is no conflict between Sudan and Chad?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are in regular contact with Governments on those issues. As I have said, the important point is that all sides need to stop the conflict, because until it stops and the talks are in place, we cannot hope for the much-needed peace in Darfur and in Sudan.

David Chaytor: The recent rise in global food prices has led to food riots in a number of developing countries, one of which is Cameroon. As it is the only Commonwealth country to have an English-speaking minority with a justified sense of grievance, will the Minister speak to her counterpart in Cameroon to ensure that the riots over food prices are not used as a pretext for a further crackdown on that English-speaking minority?

Meg Munn: We obviously share the concern that all Cameroonians should enjoy equal rights, free from disadvantage, in respect of their regional or linguistic reasons. We have not raised this issue previously, but I am happy to pass this on to my noble Friend and to take up this issue of discrimination.

Income Tax

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on how I propose to deal, this year, with the consequences of the withdrawal of the 10p starting rate of income tax.
	In the Budget last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as Chancellor, introduced just two rates of tax with the basic rate of tax cut from 22p to 20pthe lowest rate for 75 years. At that time, allowances for pensioners over the age of 65 were increased; and recognising that, as the tax credit system became more developed and more generous, we were better able to target resources on low-income households, we increased the working tax credit and the child tax credit, as well as child benefit.
	As a result of those changes, more than 16 million households have gained and 600,000 more pensioners pay no income tax at all. Because of the changes announced in 2007 and in this year's Budget, half a million children will be lifted out of povertya record that no other Government have ever matched.
	In my letter to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee three weeks ago, I said that I would set out our proposals to help those who lost out as a result of the withdrawal of the 10p starting rate of tax for the longer term in the pre-Budget report later this year. As I said in my letter, my focus would be on changes to offset the average loss of 120 per household and that whatever conclusions we came to, the changes would be backdated to the start of this financial year. But I also said that I would not wait unnecessarily until November before setting out how we intended to proceed.
	I said that I would look at the administrative practicalities of other options that some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested, including a one-off rebate or compensatory payment, as well as changes to the tax credit system to allow the average losses to be offset. Having looked at this further, I believe that a rebate scheme would be complex and expensive to administer. It would also take time to set up and, in any event, changes to the eligibility for tax credits could not be introduced this year.
	However, I can bring forward a proposal for this year that will offset the average loss and that will provide financial support more fairly, quickly and efficiently than any one-off rebate schemeprovided we legislate for it now in this year's Finance Bill. For that reason, I am proposing to bring forward one measure from the pre-Budget report now.
	I want to help families on low and middle incomes as soon as possible. But my proposal for this year will not only help those on low incomes who lost out, but do more to help all basic rate taxpaying families at a time when oil and food prices have been rising in every part of the world. So, at a cost of 2.7 billion, I will increase the individual personal tax allowance by 600 to 6,035 for this financial year, benefiting all basic rate taxpayers under 65.
	That will mean that 22 million people on low and middle incomes will gain an additional 120 this year. It will mean that 4.2 million households will receive as much, or more than, they originally lost. The remaining 1.1 million households will see their loss at least halved. In other words, 80 per cent. of households are fully compensated, with the remaining 20 per cent. compensated by at least half. In addition, 600,000 people on low incomes will be taken out of income tax altogether.
	People aged between 60 and 64, whose average loss was 100, will also get the advantage of the increased personal allowance worth up to 120. They will also receive the additional 50 winter fuel payment for this year, which I announced in the Budget. The increased personal allowance will apply to all income for this tax year and so will be backdated to 6 April. As a result, from September, basic rate taxpayers will see a one-off increase in their monthly income of 60 and then an increase of 10 per month for the rest of the financial year.
	Higher rate taxpayers were largely unaffected by the reforms that were announced last year. So it is fair to focus this additional support on basic rate taxpayers only. However, as the 600 increased personal allowance applies not just to basic rate taxpayers but also to those paying tax at a higher rate, I am reducing the threshold at which an individual starts to pay tax at the higher rate by 600.
	The net effect of these changes is that the tax liability of everyone who currently pays tax at 40 per cent. will be unaffected by the increase in the personal allowance. Those brought into the higher rate will gain by up to 120 this year.
	I propose to legislate for these changes in this year's Finance Bill so that taxpayers will get the benefit of the change from September. Raising the personal allowance is simpler than other solutions, and also retains the benefit of a simpler tax system and allows basic rate taxpayers to see the benefits as soon as possible, and for the whole of this financial year.
	My proposal will also provide additional support for individuals and families this year, including those on middle incomes who have benefited from other reforms announced in 2007. We are providing that support at a time when they are facing additional costs. I have brought forward this measure from the pre-Budget report in order to ensure that people get the benefit as soon as possible. I shall set out proposals for next year and beyond at that time.
	As I made clear at the time of the Budget, it is right and sensible to allow borrowing to rise and investment to be maintained as the economy slows. Debt is lower than it was in the past and low by international standards. Our fiscal policy, like our monetary policy, is designed to support stability in these uncertain economic times generated by the turbulence in world financial markets and global commodity-price inflation. I am able to finance the proposal through borrowing this year, ensuring that we do not take money out of the economy at this time.
	I will, of course, set out my fiscal projections and decisions in the pre-Budget report as usual, consistent with the fiscal rules and in line with the requirements of the code for financial stability. For future years, our aim is to continue the same level of support for those on lower incomes and I shall bring forward proposals to do that in the pre-Budget report.
	The change that I am announcing today represents the fairest and most effective way to help all those affected as a result of the changes proposed last year. In addition, this family tax cut provides support this year for those on middle incomes at a time when they face increased bills, so supporting the economy. I commend the statement to the House.

George Osborne: This is, of course, the 10th emergency statement in the 10 months that the Chancellor has been in office. How humiliating for him to come to the House today with a mini-Budget to clear up the mess made by the Prime Minister in his last Budget as Chancellor.
	Unlike in the case of the Minister for Housing today, we have not seen an advance copy of the statement. The Chancellor will forgive us if we look at the small print of his Budget announcementafter all, this lot cheered when he announced the last changes, which then unravelled.
	Let me also make it clear that we will welcome anything that can be done to help the millions of low-paid people hit by the regressive tax rises of this Government. We will support any genuine compensation that is offered. The Prime Minister, muttering to his Chancellor, might remember that he spent months before the last general election arguing against increases in personal tax allowances, saying that they were not a particularly well-targeted measure.
	Surely the lesson is that this sounded less like a considered statement from a Chancellor and more like a cynical press release in a by-election campaign. First we got the tax con, and now we are getting the compensation con, for it is clear that this help is for one year only. It is a one-off paymenta one-off solution to tax rises that hit every year. The Opposition remember the one-off council tax rebate to pensioners before the last general election. We will look carefully at what the Chancellor promises. We will ask him what the long-term plans are to help people and to compensate them. The Government are treating people like fools.
	The Chancellor said in his first interview in his job, with the  Financial Times, that tax changes should only ever be announced at the proper timeat the Budget or the pre-Budget report. Since then, he has announced U-turns on every single original tax idea that he has had. And here he is, in the middle of May, reopening last year's Budget's changes in income tax and attempting to clear up the mess of the man sitting next to him. It comes on the same day that inflation numbers have soared and his plans to tax foreign profits are unravelling. Surely whatever remaining reputation that the Prime Minister had for economic competence has evaporated today.
	This is the Prime Minister who, on the plane back from America, said that there were no losers from his Budget, but was then forced to admit that there were millions of losers. He said that he would not rewrite his Budget but he now sits as the man next to him rewrites the Budget that he gave. He said that in-year payments were impossible, but now the Government are making in-year payments.
	Let no one be fooled [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should be listened to, and I do not expect a Parliamentary Private Secretary, Mr. Robertson, to be shouting across the Chamber. It is just not the done thing.

George Osborne: Why do they not save their fury for the internal Labour party rows that are happening?
	Let no one be fooled about why the Chancellor is making this statement today. It is not because he wanted to, or because of any sense of guilt at hitting the low-paid, or because the Prime Minister thinks that it is the right thing to do. It is because this divided, dithering and disintegrating Government are panicking in the face of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. The Prime Minister, who once commanded so much respect from friends and foes alike, now looks like the unelected leader who is desperate to save his skin, cowering before every electoral challenge and insulting the intelligence of the very people whom he has hurt.
	This is a one-off change only, for this year only. The Chancellor serves up a compensation con after a tax con and expects people to believe it. What utter cynicism, what total incompetenceand what a complete humiliation for this Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Alistair Darling: Three weeks ago, when the hon. Gentleman stood at the Dispatch Box on the first day of consideration of the Finance Bill, he led us to believe that he had very strong views and that steps should be taken immediately to deal with those people who lost out as a result of the withdrawal of the 10p rate. Yet today he cannot tell us whether he is for or against what we are proposing.
	Once again, as on every issue, we see that there is nothing here of substance. The shadow Chancellor cannot say whether he is for the proposal or against it. The Conservative party was in favour of withdrawing the 10p rate when the proposal was first made. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) put forward his amendment last year, the Conservatives abstained. Three weeks ago, they wanted to reinstate the 10p rate. Their position has been completely confused and it is self-evident today that they have no idea whether they are for or against what we are proposing.
	We are making proposals that will help 80 per cent. of those who lost out as a result of the changes. They will gain up to 120 a year, and that will go a substantial way towards helping people. I am sorry that the Conservative party could not bring itself to welcome what we are doing.

John McFall: I welcome the Chancellor's statement today. I have to say that it is nothing but churlish and mean not to welcome a statement that benefits everyone on basic rate taxation and which takes 600,000 people out of tax altogether.
	Given the Chancellor's welcome for the Treasury Committee's inquiry, which was focused exclusively on the low-paid, will he continue to work with us to monitor the effects of the Government's policy on ensuring the reduction of child poverty, the elimination of fuel poverty and the increase in the labour market participation of those on benefits? That inquiry will ensure that we work towards the PBR and get something done for peoplenot just for this year, although what my right hon. Friend has done is welcome, but for future years as well.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given. He is right that today's proposals will benefit many people in this country. Yes, the Treasury will of course continue to co-operate with the Treasury Committee and its inquiry. I think that I am still looking forward to appearing before that Committee at the beginning of June.

Vincent Cable: I of course welcome measures to lift low earners out of tax, and for a few hours this announcement may well get the Chancellor out of the difficulties that he created for himself. How many of the 5.3 million losers will be fully compensated by the measure? A quick back-of-the-envelope calculationthat is all that he has allowed us to do, because he is hiding behind market sensitivitysuggests that to compensate the losers, he would have needed to raise the threshold by 1,000. Clearly the Treasury has done the sums and has looked at the various categories, including pensioners, low-paid workers, and part-time and full-time workers. Can he tell us precisely how many of the 5.3 million losers will be fully compensated within the year?
	Secondly, the Chancellor has imposed an apparent levy on high earners; the money will be clawed back from them. How long will that measure be in place, and how much of the 2.4 billion cost will be paid for by that route, rather than through additional borrowing?
	Can the right hon. Gentleman also explain in a little more detail his reasons for rejecting the idea of a tax rebate? Over the past few days, I have had discussions with tax practitioners, including people from the low incomes tax reform group, which I know he relies on very heavily. That group suggests that it would be perfectly simple for the Inland Revenue to calculate the tax that people would have paid under the old 10p/20p system, and rebate them fully for their losses. The group will come forward with a proposal to that effect in the next few days. Why is the measure that he described more complex than that, and why does it do less to guarantee payments?
	Finally, the Chancellor is quite right to focus attention on the low-paid workers, many of them earning well below the minimum wage, who pay tax. It is welcome that he is moving in the direction of lifting them out of tax. All of us will have to focus on how that is done and how it is paid for. I hope that today's measures are not just another short-term gimmick, but the beginning of a process through which the low-paid pay less tax.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises four perfectly pertinent questions, which I shall answer. May I acknowledge his welcome for the measure that I am proposing?
	First, I said in my statement that 4.2 million households will receive as much as, or more than, they originally lost. The remaining 1.1 million householders will have their loss at least halved. In addition, those people might be benefiting from tax credits and other measures. I set out to try to offset the average loss; I think that that is what the majority of people in the House wanted us to do. The hon. Gentleman also asked how the measure is being paid for. This year, it is being paid for by borrowing. As for what I have done in relation to higher rate tax payers, under the tax system, every single taxpayer gets the same personal allowance, but because I wanted to ensure that the help went to basic rate taxpayers only, I made a change there. People who currently pay the 40 per cent. rate will not pay any more, so the cost is covered by borrowing.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked why I did not use a rebate. I looked into that very carefully. I had always thought that the Liberals' policy was to use allowances. He is nodding; it is not clear why he is wishing on me something that he does not want himself, but there we are. I considered the issue of rebates, and I saw that that would be horrendously complicated. We would have to set up a new system. In addition to that, the Inland Revenue tells me that every year about half a million people move, and the Revenue does not know their addresses, so their cheques would go missing. When I looked at the proposal, and at the comparative costs, which are not actually that different, I decided that it would be far better to do something simpler and easy to understand. It is easy to understand that personal tax allowances will be raised by 600 a year. Basic rate taxpayers will therefore get 60 in their pay packet from September, and 10 a month thereafter.
	The hon. Gentleman's final question was what would happen in future years. I have said that I will set that out in the pre-Budget report, but I repeat what I said in my statement: in addition to helping those people who have an income of up to 20,000those whom people were principally concerned aboutwe are helping those whose incomes go up to 40,000. Given the current circumstances, in which people face increasing bills because of what is going on in the world commodity markets and the financial markets, this year it is right to do more to help people on low and middle incomesin other words, all those on the basic rate taxas other countries have done. That is why I think that my proposal is far better and far more effective, and goes far further, than the measures that many people were asking for just three weeks ago.

Frank Field: I congratulate the Chancellor on putting an end to the issue. I hazard a guess that the pleasure being expressed from the Labour Benches will be widely expressed in the country as well. As the Prime Minister is in his place, may I add that over the weekend I allowed my campaign to become personal. I much regret that, and I apologise without reservation.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said in both respects. It is not every day that hon. Members have the courage to say what he said, and it is appreciated. In relation to his comments on tax, I hope that most people, not just in the House but outside, will welcome the announcement as a substantial step in helping people on low incomes as well as those on middle incomes, especially at a time when they rightly look to their Government to support them in very difficult and uncertain times in the world economy.

Peter Lilley: The Chancellor has not spelled out where he will obtain the welcome 3 billion, almost, that he was not able to find at the time of his Budget. In the past he has always said that any tax cut translates automatically into a reduction in the number of nurses, doctors and teachers. If he is not saying that that consequence follows in the case of his tax cuts, why does he say it of other tax cuts?

Alistair Darling: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman does not want to see any reduction in the numbers of doctors, nurses and teachers. As I said in my statement, I promised the Select Committee that I would return to the matter in the pre-Budget report. The reason that I am announcing the step today is so that we can legislate in the Finance Bill that is before the House, to get the changes in place so that the extra money can be in the hands of taxpayers from September onwards.

John Battle: I thank my right hon. Friend for his patient efforts to tackle and resolve the matter. That clearly demonstrates that even in difficult circumstances, it is this Chancellor, this Prime Minister and this Government who are clearly on the side of the people on low pay and middle incomes. Will my right hon. Friend also deal with the abysmally low take-up of tax credits? Could his Department initiate a take-up campaign so that people get the income that is justly theirs?

Dai Havard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: After the statement.

Dai Havard: I would like to read it

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Alistair Darling: On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), I agree that we need to do more to encourage the take-up of the working tax credit. The take-up of the child tax credit is quite substantial. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend overall for the welcome that he has given.
	Mr. Speaker, if my statement is not now in the Vote Office, it ought to be, and I will take steps to make sure that it is.

Mr. Speaker: It has been put to me, Chancellor, that those in the Press Gallery have the statement [Interruption.] Order. I take a dim view of the Press Gallery having information before the House. I hope that that information is wrong.

Alistair Darling: From the moment I sat down, my statement should have been available. Steps are being taken to find out why it is not in the Vote Office, because it ought to be there.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there actually are copies of my statement outside.

Iain Duncan Smith: Can the Chancellor confirm that the 1.1 million losers of whom he spoke earlier are from the lowest income bracketsthose earning between just under 7,000 and 8,000 a year? Those people will lose up to 120. Will he confirm that that is the case? Will he now take the opportunity to apologise to them as his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has doneright now at the Dispatch Box, for all the trouble and fear that he has caused them?

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement, the overall effect of what I am proposing is that 4.2 million households will receive as much as or more than they lost. The 1.1 million people to whom I think the right hon. Gentleman referred will see that their losses are at least halved. He asked about the distribution of those people. The position is that there are people at different stages of income who do not benefit as much as others. I said that I will return to that matter at the pre-Budget report this autumn.

Russell Brown: I most sincerely congratulate the Chancellor on the steps that he is taking today. I do not wish to be pedantic, but I sincerely hope that in the pre-Budget statement he takes steps on the issue of families who still find themselves 2 or 3 a week worse off; 2 or 3 a week is precious to people on extremely low incomes. I hope that he will further rectify the situation with a second announcement in the pre-Budget statement.

Alistair Darling: I said in my statement that I wanted to concentrate help in future years particularly on those with lower incomes. Today I have been able to propose a measure that will benefit not just people on low incomes, but a substantial number of my hon. Friend's constituents and others who face increased bills at this time. It is right to do that, having regard to the current uncertainties in the world economy and the rising prices that people face here at home.

Stewart Hosie: In his statement, the Chancellor said that he would deal with the issue this year, that he would offset the average losses and that he has brought forward the increase in the allowance to 600. I give that a very, very guarded welcomefirst, until I read the small print, and secondly, because 1 million-plus individuals will still be worse off.
	Will the Chancellor confirm, however, that the change to the allowances on earnings will have no bearing on the abolition of the 10p rate on savings income, and that those households that may lose up to 460 a year in additional tax because of the abolition of the 10p tax rate on their savings income will not be compensated in any way as a result of the measures announced today?

Alistair Darling: Last year, when the changes were proposed, the savings rate was not changed at all. If the hon. Gentleman was raising a slightly different point or I misunderstood him, I will be happy to deal with that in correspondence. However, I think that he will find that the savings rate was not changed.

Mark Durkan: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Chancellor's statement. The remedy that he has announced today is clearer and has come earlier than previous statements had indicated. As well as the welcome remedy that he has provided for the 4.2 million householdsin some cases, it is better than a remedywill he give us an assurance that the figure of 1.1 million in respect of those who will see their loss reduced by at least half is accurate? Will he tell us who, typically, those remaining losers are and why they could not be better helped?

Alistair Darling: As I explained in my statement, I am proposing to increase the personal tax allowance that everyone gets. To that extent, the benefit is a flat-rate one that will go to all basic-rate taxpayers. As a result, 80 per cent. of people will find that their loss is completely offset or that they will do better than that. There are others whose loss is at least halved. At the pre-Budget report, when I set out proposals for future years, I want to do more, particularly for people on low incomes.
	When I looked at how we might deal with the problem, I saw that the difficulty of trying to isolate actual losses or set up a rebate system that took account of individual circumstances was such that doing those things would have taken a very long time. I also suspect that it would have been a very blunt-edged instrument. The approach that I have set out is more straightforward and simpler and has the benefit of getting money into the hands of people at an early opportunity, rather than our having to wait right up until the end of this financial year.

Michael Fallon: But why should 1.1 million still be losers? At a time of rising prices, why should any low-paid people pay more tax?

Alistair Darling: I said when I wrote to the Select Committeeand this was certainly a theme taken up by many Members of the Housethat what I wanted to do quickly was offset the average loss that was sustained by people following the withdrawal of the tax rate. That is what I sought to do, and that, I think, is the right thing to do. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should be doing something different or more, then no doubt he will advocate that course to his own Front Benchers. As far as I can see, however, they have no intention of doing anything more, just as I suspect, if left to their own devices, they would have absolutely no intention of helping people on low incomes at all.

Judy Mallaber: I very much welcome the statement, because it would be very cumbersome to try to recalculate for individuals. It also recognises that although taking children out of poverty has been very welcome, those without children or whose children have grown up have lost out because of this. Will my right hon. Friend still consider some of the proposals that he previously suggested he would consider, such as the minimum wage for young people and the tax credits system generally, in looking forward to the next pre-Budget statement?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I can. I said that one of the things that we needed to consider was the minimum wage and its inclusion of younger people. Equally, in relation to tax credits, I think, unlike the Conservatives, that tax credits have gone a long way towards boosting the incomes of people on low and middle incomes and have made substantial changes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) said, we need to ensure that take-up of the working tax credit is improved, but tax credits are a much better way than we have had in the past of helping people who particularly need help. The answer to my hon. Friend is that those are both areas to which I will return.

Julia Goldsworthy: There are still 1.1 million low-income households that will lose out as a result of today's announcement, even though all the people who had previously been paying the basic rate of tax will gain. Why does the Chancellor consider that this group remains the least deserving poor, in his opinion?

Alistair Darling: As I said earlier, I wanted to introduce a system that was simple, that was quick to get on to the statute book, and that, above all, was quick to get the money into the hands of as many taxpayers as possible. The problem with the sort of scheme to which the hon. Lady refersa rebate scheme, because that is the only way in which one could do individual calculationsis that it would be cumbersome and complicated. I suspect that if we set it up, she and her party would be the first to criticise it.

Jeff Ennis: The Chancellor will know that in my constituency there are many former miners who took early retirement in the 1990s, mainly because the Tories closed all the pits in south Yorkshire. Many are now above pensionable age and have been adversely affected by the removal of the 10p income tax rate. What are the implications of the Chancellor's statement for constituents of mine who fall into this category?

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement, the changes that I propose affect people over the age of 60 to 65. That is why I decided that the personal tax increase should apply to them rather than making a payment through the winter fuel payment mechanism. In 2007, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his original proposal to reduce the basic rate of tax to 20p, he raised the age-related allowances for the over-65s in order to look after them. The answer to my hon. Friend is that his constituents of pensionable age will benefit from this in the way that I described.

Bob Spink: I welcome the Chancellor's statement. For the future, will he consider introducing a fairer, simpler flat tax system removing 4.5 million low-income people from paying tax, which is another sound UKIP policy?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome, but I cannot go along the road with him in relation to his flat tax proposal, although it was at one time the stated policy of the shadow Chancellor.

Stuart Bell: May I recall to the Chancellor's mind the noble Lord Lamont? When Lord Lamont pushed interest rates up to 15 per cent., Britain was required to withdraw from the exchange rate mechanism and it took us years to recover, which we did only with the onset of a Labour Government. I congratulate the Chancellor on assisting low and middle-income earners and all tax-paying families, as we have done over the past 11 years, in contrast with the record of the Tory Government from '92 to '97.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. The whole country has benefited from high levels of employment, and from the fact that we have historically low interest rates andeven given today's figureshistorically low inflation rates, which are lower than those in America and Europe. During the past 11 years, because we have had such a strong and stable economy, we have been able to do far more to lift children out of poverty, lift pensioners out of poverty and help people on low incomes as well as those on middle incomes. I believe that my announcement today will go a long way in helping people who do not have children, or whose children have grown upa group of people whom many in my party feel strongly we ought to support, especially at the moment.

Anne Main: I am somewhat disappointed that we cannot have an accurate profile of those who will still lose out, apart from describing them as having their average losses halved. The Chancellor says that he has used a system that is simple and quicksome might say he has done so for expediencybut that indicates to me that those lowest-paid workers will have a system that will be slow and complicated, in which case they will be hard to target and to recompense, and my constituents will not find that acceptable.

Alistair Darling: My proposal means that through the tax system, assuming the House agrees to the amendments that I have proposed, from September taxpayers will receive a payment of 60, followed by a monthly payment of 10 for the rest of the financial year. I would have thought that that was pretty simple. The hon. Lady would be on stronger ground if she were putting forward an alternative, but as I understand it, the Conservative party does not have a position. It has no idea what it would do.

Geraldine Smith: Credit where credit is due: people often say that politicians do not listen, but the Chancellor has shown that he has listened and he has acted very quickly to help low-paid people in my constituency. I am very grateful for that, but does he agree that it is difficult out there at the moment? People are struggling with the rise in food prices and the price of fuel, which are due to world economic circumstances. Will he give me an assurance that he will continue to look out for the interests of those on modest incomes?

Alistair Darling: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, which is why this year my proposal will help not just people on low incomesbelow 20,000who were affected following the withdrawal of the 10p rate, but crucially, people on middle incomes of up to 40,000 as well. I agree with her that people, especially those without children, are finding it difficult. They have to meet higher fuel and food bills because of what is happening throughout the world, and it is right that we should help them. That is why my proposal is deliberately designed to help a far wider range of people than was anticipated when we were simply talking about the starting rate of tax. I welcome what my hon. Friend says; I am sorry that the Conservatives cannot do so.

Paul Holmes: I welcome the Chancellor's partial attempt to undo the damage caused by the previous Chancellor to the poorest earners. I regret, however, that more than a million, including many in my constituency, will still be losing out. I ask the same question that I asked three weeks ago: why did it take 13 months for the Government to realise what their policies would do? Did they not analyse the figures 13 months ago and realise what the impact would be on the poorest, or did they have a cynical belief that they could do this to the poorest because they would still vote Labour?

Alistair Darling: Last year, my right hon. Friend introduced a number of changes to the tax credit system, raising the age-related allowances, but it is clear that others had lost out and we needed to help them. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot welcome what I am proposing today, but it is infinitely better than what I am beginning to detect might be the Liberal Democrat policy, at least for today, which is a policy relating to rebates. I do not think that that would be the right way to proceed.

Joan Humble: I welcome the simplicity of the scheme that the Chancellor announced because it will enable a speedy response, which is what my constituents want. They want the money in their pocket as soon as possible. Will he therefore tell me how he intends to let them know about this good news? Sadly, there are many 60 to 64-year-old pensioners and people on the lowest of incomes who do not read newspapers and who do not see television news. Will he write to them directly or work through the voluntary organisations that have links with them to let them know that relief is at hand?

Alistair Darling: There is always a chance that my hon. Friend's constituents will read about the announcement in the newspapers or see it on the television, but I will consider ways in which we might better tell people what is happening. The advantage of my proposal is that the payments will be made through the PAYE scheme, with which most people are familiar and which is simpler and easier to operate.

Oliver Letwin: May I ask the Chancellor to check whether the Government's announcement of a one-year tax rebate during a by-election is consistent with electoral law?

Alistair Darling: I think that my proposal is entirely sensible and the right thing to do. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is concerned about people on low and middle incomes, cannot welcome it.

Rob Marris: I welcome my right hon. Friend's revised proposals for the 10p tax rate. When might the House expect him to introduce revised proposals for vehicle excise duty rates for next year?

Alistair Darling: My announcement today was entirely about income tax. All other matters will be dealt with in the usual way.

Alistair Burt: Does not the Chancellor admit, even to himself, a twinge of embarrassment that instead of coming here as a great reforming Chancellor, he has produced a shabby deal which is designed to get himself, the Government and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister out of a fix of his own making? Does he believe for a moment that anyone beyond those on the Benches behind him will not see this announcement for exactly what it is: the most shameless attempt to buy a by-election since the Humber bridge?

Alistair Darling: A few weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman was, I assume, ready to follow the rest of the Conservatives into the Lobby, wanting us to take action to help people on low and middle incomes. We are taking action to help people on low and middle incomes, and it is clear that the Conservatives have no idea how to provide that help or about their position on this issue.

Nigel Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment at the Conservative party's new-found, synthetic concern for poor people? Will he remind the House that, during the last recession, the Conservative crunch left millions of people on the dole, more than 10 million senior citizens without any help with their fuel costs, people with negative equity and record numbers of repossessions?

Alistair Darling: I agree. Many people in this country remember what happened in the 1980s and 1990s, when people lost their jobs and received no help from the Government to help them get back on their feet. They also remember a time when interest rates were in double figures and people found themselves in substantial difficulties. They received no help because the then Government's position was so weak that they could do nothing to help them.

Greg Clark: Will the Chancellor make it clear, since he knows the answer to this question, whether it is his understanding that the people who will continue to lose out through the abolition of the 10p rate are those at the bottom of the income scalein other words, the Government's very own poverty line?

Alistair Darling: No. I said in an earlier reply that we have been able to help 80 per cent. people whose loss will be fully compensated or even more than that. There are about a million people whose losses will be halved. I said that I wanted to revert to that in the pre-Budget report. As a result of the announcement, 600,000 people will be taken out of tax. That shows our intention, which is a little more than the Conservative party would do if it were presented with the opportunity to do anything about helping people on low incomes.

Points of Order

Jim Sheridan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Chancellor's statement, the Opposition Chief Whip could be clearly heard shouting from a sedentary position, Get back to Scotland. Given that this is a UK Parliament, is that kind of language and behaviour acceptable? It is clearly inconsistent with the Conservative party's unholy pact with the nationalists.

Mr. Speaker: It was a sedentary intervention and, take it from me, being invited to go to Scotland is a nice thing.

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Labour party was putting literature around in Crewe and Nantwich this morning with the very figures that were announced to the House only a few minutes ago. Would you please investigate this matter to ensure that it does not breach electoral law or the primacy of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that my deep concern was about the statement not being given in this ChamberI know that it was in the Vote Office, but it was not in the Chamberso allow me to concentrate on that. The matters about Crewe and Nantwich I do not want to be drawn into.

Graham Stuart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you take on board the concern among Conservative Members that the statement was not presented to those on our Front Bench before it was made, on the grounds of market sensitivity? It would appear that the only market that the Government were concerned about was the electorate market in Crewe and Nantwich.

Mr. Speaker: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a matter for the Government to judge [ Interruption. ] Order. What concerned me was that the Press Gallery had the information before the House. No disrespect to the Press Gallery, but my priority is the Members of the House. If the Government had not put the statement out to anyone, that would have been a matter for the Government.

Armed Forces (Federation)

Kevan Jones: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a Federation for the Armed Forces; and for connected purposes.
	I am pleased to be able to introduce this Bill. Many hon. Members will remember that I tabled a similar Bill in the last Parliament. However, there has been a groundswell of opinion among the public and members of the armed forces on the need for an independent voice to represent their interests.
	The controversies surrounding the standard of accommodation, injured personnel and the terrible incidents at Deepcut barracks have increasingly led to ordinary members of the armed forces coming forward to say that they need an organisation to make their voice heard. There is also a growing need for members of the armed forces to have independent legal advice. I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, where I moved an amendment to establish a federation for the armed forces. The Government resisted my amendment, but I strongly believe that there is now an overwhelming case for the armed forces to have an independent federation.
	I should point out to those who oppose the move that I propose not a trade union, but a federation similar to the Police Federation. I would also like to build on the excellent work done by the British Armed Forces Federation. That organisation was established in October 2006. I pay tribute to Douglas Young and his team at the federation, who have got that vital initiative off the ground. The Bill does not seek to put in place a federation, but to put the federation that already exists on a formal footing that is recognised by the Ministry of Defence.
	The aims of the federation would continue to be those set out in its statement, which are
	to represent, foster and promote the professional welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom.
	The activities of the federation would be: first, to put forward professional and career development through the provision of education and information to its members; secondly, to liaise and monitor developments within the armed forces and Parliament, and in the provision of public services or in the commercial sector affecting members of Her Majesty's armed forces; and thirdly, to act as an advocate for members of the armed forces in areas such as pay, accommodation, medical services, welfare provision, resettlement and all other areas relating to personnel support. Fourthly, the federation would be seen as a way of supporting personnel who were facing legal action and other issues connected with their service in the armed forces. Lastly, I would also argue that it should be an organisation that could put in place a range of benefits, including insurance, financial benefits, discounts and other affinity deals for members of the armed forces.
	The federation would not be beholden to any political party or pressure group, or to any defence industry interests. It is important that it should be seen to be an independent federation representing members of our armed forces. It would not routinely comment on the adequacy, robustness or cost-effectiveness of defence expenditure, although it would obviously have to comment on issues that directly affected its members. It would certainly not be a defence pressure group, however. It would be seen as an organisation that gave a voice to the men and women who serve on our behalf in Her Majesty's armed forces.
	There is a contention that the federation would in some way control or interfere with the chain of command. I want to make it quite clear that it would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination in our armed forces. Its role in relation to the chain of command should be subject to a code of conduct. That is not new; the chain of command already accepts information from and the involvement of organisations such as Daniel's Trust, which deals with Army training and the interests of new recruits at Catterick. I would therefore argue that the organisation would enhance rather than interfere with the chain of command. The federation would protect individual members in relation to their living conditions and general well-being, as well as reinforcing the point that members of the armed forces are an important part of society and promoting the good work that they do.
	It has been suggested that this proposal is somehow radical and new, and that we would be out of step with our major allies if we were to adopt it. I have looked at some of the overseas examples, including the Association of the United States Army, which works in three main areas. It provides a voice for all members of the US army, fosters public support for the army's role in national security and provides professional, educational and information programmes. There are three other such organisations in the United States alone. One is the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, which was set up in 1966. The Military Officers' Association of America does similar work for commissioned officers, and the oldest organisation, the Reserve Officers Association, was set up by General Pershing in 1922 to advocate and lobby for the interests of national guards and reservists. There are also a number of European examples of similar federations, which come together under the umbrella of the European Organisation of Military OrganisationsEUROMILwhich was set up in 1972. It now comprises 36 associations from 24 countries across Europe, representing nearly 500,000 individuals. The latest additions are Malta and Romania.
	In conclusion, the Bill will not set up an armed forces federation; there is already one in existence. It will, however, allow the British Armed Forces Federation to be recognised by the MOD and to be valued for providing a voice for ordinary members of the armed forces. The BAFF has already stated that, if the legislation were introduced, it would seek to work with the Government and other stakeholders to develop an appropriate structure. The Bill gives the Government an opportunity to recognise that, in an ever-changing world, the members of our armed forces need a voice. I urge the Government to take on board the provisions that I am proposing today.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kevan Jones, Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Dai Havard, Helen Jones, Jim Sheridan, David Wright and Andrew Mackinlay.

Armed forces (federation)

Mr. Kevan Jones accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a Federation for the Armed Forces; and for connected purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed [Bill 108].

Education and Skills Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Jim Knight: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 14th January 2008 (Education and Skills Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 TABLE 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses other than those relating to Part 1 or to duties of local education authorities in relation to the provision of education and training Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order 
			 New Clauses, and amendments to Clauses, relating to the application of Part 1 to persons in Wales Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order 
			 Remaining proceedings on consideration One hour before the moment of interruption 
		
	
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
	We have limited time for debate, so I hope that we will not have to put this to a vote.

Nick Gibb: Before it was announced that there was to be a statement today, we were relatively happy with the programme motion. We were, however, uncomfortable with the fact that the Government were shoehorning into the Bill at this late stage 16 new sections on admissions with 27 regulation-making powers that had not been debated in Committee. Some of those sections relate to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, but some are new and propose significant powers for the Secretary of State. As a constructive Opposition, we nevertheless did our best to accept the timetable despite the 150 amendments and 23 new clauses, but that was on the assumption that that tight timetable would not be squeezed by a statement.
	Given that this is meant to be a flagship Bill for the Government, it is surprising that they are content to squeeze time on such important amending provisions, particularly new clause 6, which is designed to provide support for vulnerable young people and has the backing of both Barnado's and Rainer. What is more, it is being squeezed by a statement made today for essentially party reasons, which could easily have been made on another day when the business was much lighter.
	Even now, we would support a change to the programme motion to calculate the time from the commencement of proceedings on this motion, which would give us back the full five and a half hours of debate. If the Government will not make that change, I urge hon. Members to vote against the programme motion.

David Laws: I do not want to delay proceedings either, but I want to support the comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). The time allotted is totally inappropriate for a Bill of such importance, especially when we are unlikely to have time to debate almost 110 amendments and new clauses set down for consideration in a portion of today's proceedings and given that, in our earlier proceedings, we did not have the opportunity to debate certain issues, particularly those relating to new clauses 6 and 9. It is wholly inappropriate to shoehorn the business in this way, thus preventing us from debating issues that were not properly covered in earlier stages. The programme motion makes it impossible for us to do justice to the scrutiny required for this Bill and the amendments and new clauses before us. Unless the Government are willing to make the sort of concessions requested, I am afraid that we will also have to oppose the programme motion.

Philip Davies: I, too, urge hon. Members to oppose the programme motion. Mr. Speaker has been exceedingly generous in his selection of amendments, but the programme motion will not allow us to reach many of the amendments far down the line that need to be discussed. Because of the statement, a maximum of half an hour or, if there is a vote after the second group of amendments, perhaps only a quarter of an hour would be left available to discuss a raft of amendments.
	I have tabled two of the amending provisions: new clause 16 and new clause 23. New clause 16 deals with an issue that the Secretary of State kindly got involved with earlier in our proceedings when a constituent of mine, who was an orphan, was expected to leave school because she could not afford to stay on. My new clause would do something to tackle that. We have amendments that are designed to address the problems that Kirsty Oldfield faces, but we do not have time to vote on them or even to debate them. How must this House look to constituents of mine such as Kirsty? It looks like a complete and utter shambles, and that brings it into disrepute.
	Given that the statement has eaten into the time availableI certainly do not want to waste any more time discussing the programme motionand that there are important matters to be debated, to which hon. Members have tabled amendments which deserve to be given time for consideration, it is beholden on the Government to reflect on what is in them that will not get debated unless we change the motion. If they will not listen, are intent on being dogmatic, and will not change it, I urge hon. Members to oppose the motion.

Barry Sheerman: I am very pleased that some important amendments on admissions have been tabled by the Government, even at a late stage. I remind the House that many of them are based on recommendations of the all-party Select Committee on Education and Skills, to which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was party two years ago. Some very good amendments have been tabled. I hope that the House will be a little more positive than it otherwise might be, especially as no one is sitting on the Liberal Democrat Back Benches, and only three people are sitting behind the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.

Jim Knight: There is other business beyond this. I hope that we do not waste 15 minutes on a vote and that we can get on with it.

Question put:
	 The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 166.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Education and Skills Bill

[Relevant document:  The Nineteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2007-08, Legislative Scrutiny: Education and Skills Bill, HC 553.]
	 As amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

New Clause 14
	  
	Admission arrangements

'(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 88 insert
	 Admission arrangements: England.
	(3) In section 88A (prohibition on interviews), in subsections (1) and (3), after maintained school insert in England.
	(4) After section 88A insert
	88B Admission arrangements relating to children looked after by local authority
	(1) Regulations may require the admission authorities for maintained schools in England to include in their admission arrangements such provision relating to the admission of children who are looked after by a local authority in England as may be prescribed.
	(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision for securing that, subject to sections 86(3), 86B(2) and (4) and 87, such children are to be offered admission in preference to other children.
	88C Procedure for determining admission arrangements
	(1) The admission authority for a maintained school in England must, before the beginning of each school year, determine in accordance with this section the admission arrangements which are to apply for that year.
	(2) The admission authority must, before determining the admission arrangements that are to apply for a year, carry out such consultation about the proposed arrangements as may be prescribed.
	(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may in particular make provision
	(a) specifying persons who must be consulted, or who must be consulted about prescribed provisions of proposed arrangements;
	(b) Specifying provisions of proposed arrangements about which any such consultation is to be carried out;
	(c) specifying matters to which any such consultation is, or is not, to relate;
	(d) as to the manner in which, and the time by which, any such consultation is to be carried out.
	(4) When the admission authority have determined the admission arrangements that are to apply for a year, they must notify the appropriate bodies of those admission arrangements.
	(5) Regulations may make provision
	(a) as to the manner in which, and the time by which, any such notification is to be given;
	(b) specifying cases in which subsection (4) does not apply.
	88D Determination of admission numbers
	(1) A determination under section 88C by the admission authority for a maintained school in England of the admission arrangements which are to apply for a school year must include a determination of the number of pupils in each relevant age group that it is intended to admit to the school in that year.
	(2) Such a determination under section 88C may also, if the school is one at which boarding accommodation is provided for pupils, include
	(a) a determination of the number of pupils in each relevant age group that it is intended to admit to the school in that year as boarders, and
	(b) a determination of the number of pupils in each relevant age group that it is intended to admit to the school in that year otherwise than as boarders.
	(3) Regulations may make provision about the making of any determination required by subsection (1), and may in particular require the admission authority for a maintained school to have regard, in making any such determination, to
	(a) any prescribed method of calculation, and
	(b) any other prescribed matter.
	(4) References in this section to the determination of any number include references to the determination of zero as that number.
	88E Variation of admission arrangements
	(1) Subsection (2) applies where an admission authority
	(a) have in accordance with section 88C determined the admission arrangements which are to apply for a particular school year, but
	(b) at any time before the end of that year consider that the arrangements should be varied in view of a major change in circumstances occurring since they were so determined.
	(2) The authority must
	(a) refer their proposed variations to the adjudicator, and
	(b) notify the appropriate bodies of the proposed variations.
	(3) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply in a case where the authority's proposed variations fall within any description of variations prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
	(4) Where the local education authority are the admission authority for a community or voluntary controlled school, they must consult the governing body before making any reference under subsection (2)(a).
	(5) On a reference under subsection (2)(a), the adjudicator must consider whether the admission arrangements should have effect with the proposed variations until the end of the school year in question.
	(6) If the adjudicator determines
	(a) that the arrangements should so have effect, or
	(b) that they should so have effect subject to such modification of those variations as the adjudicator may determine,
	the arrangements are to have effect accordingly as from the date of the adjudicator's determination.
	(7) Where the adjudicator makes a determination under subsection (6), the admission authority must notify the appropriate bodies of the variations subject to which the arrangements are to have effect.
	(8) Regulations may make provision
	(a) as to the manner in which, and the time by which, any such notification is to be given;
	(b) specifying cases in which subsection (7) does not apply.
	(9) Regulations may make provision
	(a) specifying matters which are, or are not, to constitute major changes in circumstances for the purposes of subsection (1)(b);
	(b) authorising an admission authority, where they have in accordance with section 88C determined the admission arrangements which are to apply for a particular school year, to vary those arrangements to such extent or in such circumstances as may be prescribed;
	(c) for the application of any of the requirements of, or imposed under, subsections (2) to (8) to variations proposed to be made by virtue of paragraph (b), or to any prescribed description of such variations, as if they were variations proposed to be made under subsection (1).
	88F Sections 88C to 88E: supplementary
	(1) Regulations may make provision
	(a) requiring an admission authority who have made a determination of a prescribed description under section 88C to publish such information relating to the determination (including information as to the authority's reasons for making the determination) as may be prescribed;
	(b) as to such other matters connected with the procedure for determining or varying admission arrangements under sections 88C to 88E as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(2) The power under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) to require an admission authority to publish information includes power to require them to publish it
	(a) by giving a notice containing the information to prescribed persons, or
	(b) in any other prescribed manner.
	(3) In sections 88C and 88E, the appropriate bodies, in relation to an admission authority, means
	(a) whichever of the governing body and the local education authority are not the admission authority,
	(b) the admission authorities for all other maintained schools in the relevant area or for such class of schools as may be prescribed;
	(c) the governing bodies for all community and voluntary controlled schools in the relevant area (so far as not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)),
	(d) the admission authorities for maintained schools in England of any prescribed description,
	(e) in the case of a foundation or voluntary school which has a religious character for the purposes of Part 2, such body or person representing the religion or religious denomination in question as may be prescribed,
	(f) the admission forum for the area of the local education authority in which the school is situated, and
	(g) such other persons as may be prescribed.
	(4) In subsection (3), the relevant area means
	(a) the area of the local education authority in which the school in question is situated, or
	(b) if regulations so provide, such other area in England (whether more or less extensive than the area of the local education authority) as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations.
	88G Power to restrict alteration of admission arrangements following establishment or expansion
	(1) Subsection (2) applies in relation to a maintained school in England where
	(a) proposals for the establishment of, or the making of a prescribed alteration to, the school have been published under Part 2 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c. 40) or under section 113A of, or Schedule 7 to, the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21),
	(b) in the case of proposals for the making of a prescribed alteration to the school, the proposals are for an increase in the number of pupils that may be admitted to the school or for an enlargement of the premises,
	(c) the proposals fall to be implemented (with or without modifications), and
	(d) prescribed conditions are satisfied.
	(2) Regulations may provide that, where this subsection applies in relation to a maintained school
	(a) the admission arrangements for the initial period and each of a prescribed number of school years following that period are to be the arrangements which fall to be implemented in accordance with the proposals (or in accordance with the proposals as modified), and
	(b) those arrangements may not be varied by the admission authority for the school except
	(i) to comply with any duty imposed on them by regulations under section 88B, or
	(ii) in accordance with regulations under subsection (5).
	(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may exclude or modify any provision of section 88C, 88E or 88F in its application to cases to which the regulations apply.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may provide that in cases to which the regulations apply the admission arrangements which fall to be implemented in accordance with the proposals (or in accordance with the proposals as modified) are to be treated for the purposes of section 86(5) to (5B) as having been determined by the admission authority under section 88C.
	(5) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which an admission authority may refer to the adjudicator proposals to vary admission arrangements in cases to which regulations under subsection (2) apply.
	(6) Regulations may make provision as to the determination by the adjudicator of any reference made by virtue of subsection (5).
	(7) In this section
	initial period means
	(a) in relation to a maintained school which is being established, the period beginning with the day on which the school opens and ending with the beginning of the first school term to begin after the following July;(b) in relation to a maintained school which is increasing the number of pupils that may be admitted to the school or enlarging its premises, the period beginning with the first day on which additional pupils may be admitted or (as the case may be) the enlarged premises are in use and ending with the beginning of the first school term to begin after the following July;
	prescribed alteration means an alteration prescribed for the purposes of section 18 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c. 40).
	88H Reference of objections to adjudicator
	(1) This section applies where admission arrangements have been determined by an admission authority for a maintained school in England under section 88C.
	(2) Where
	(a) an appropriate person wishes to make an objection about the admission arrangements, and
	(b) the objection does not fall within any description of objections prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph,
	that person may refer the objection to the adjudicator.
	(3) Where
	(a) a parent of a prescribed description wishes to make an objection about the admission arrangements, and
	(b) the objection falls within any description of objections prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph,
	that person may refer the objection to the adjudicator.
	(4) On a reference under subsection (2) or (3) the adjudicator must decide whether, and (if so) to what extent, the objection should be upheld.
	(5) Regulations may make provision
	(a) as to any conditions which must be satisfied before
	(i) an objection can be referred to the adjudicator under subsection (2) or (3), or
	(ii) the adjudicator is required to determine an objection referred to him under subsection (3);
	(b) as to circumstances in which the adjudicator is not required to determine an objection under subsection (4);
	(c) prescribing the steps which may be taken by an admission authority where an objection has been referred to the adjudicator under subsection (2) or (3) but has not yet been determined.
	(d) prohibiting or restricting the reference under subsection (2) or (3), within such period following a decision by the adjudicator under this section as may be prescribed, of any objection raising the same (or substantially the same) issues in relation to the admission arrangements of the school in question.
	(6) In subsection (2), appropriate person means
	(a) a body or person within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 88F(3); or
	(b) any person prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
	88I Other functions of adjudicator relating to admission arrangements
	(1) This section applies where admission arrangements have been determined by an admission authority for a maintained school in England under section 88C.
	(2) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the admission arrangements do not, or may not, conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements, the Secretary of State may refer the admission arrangements to the adjudicator.
	(3) Subsection (4) applies where
	(a) the Secretary of State refers the admission arrangements to the adjudicator under subsection (2), or
	(b) the adjudicator receives a report under section 88P which, pursuant to regulations under subsection (5) of that section, states that the admission arrangements do not, or may not, conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements.
	(4) The adjudicator must
	(a) consider the admission arrangements, and
	(b) decide whether they conform with those requirements and, if not, in what respect they do not.
	(5) Where it appears to the adjudicator that the admission arrangements do not, or may not, conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements (and subsection (4) does not apply)
	(a) the adjudicator may consider the admission arrangements, and
	(b) if the adjudicator considers the arrangements under paragraph (a), the adjudicator must decide whether they conform with those requirements and, if not, in what respect they do not.
	(6) Regulations may make provision prescribing the steps which may be taken by an admission authority where the adjudicator
	(a) is considering the authority's admission arrangements under subsection (4)(a) or (5)(a), but
	(b) has not yet made a decision in the case under subsection (4)(b) or (5)(b) (as the case may be).
	88J Changes to admission arrangements
	(1) This section applies where the adjudicator is required to make a decision (the primary decision)
	(a) under section 88H(4) on whether to uphold an objection to admission arrangements, or
	(b) under section 88I(4)(b) or (5)(b) on whether admission arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements.
	(2) The adjudicator
	(a) must consider whether it would be appropriate for changes to be made to any aspect of the admission arrangements in consequence of the primary decision, and
	(b) may consider whether it would be appropriate for any other changes to be made to any aspect of the admission arrangements.
	(3) Where the adjudicator decides under subsection (2) that it would be appropriate for changes to be made to the admission arrangements
	(a) that decision may specify the modifications that are to be made to the arrangements, and
	(b) the admission authority must forthwith revise those arrangements in such a way as to give effect to that decision.
	(4) The adjudicator may
	(a) decide, in the case of any change required by subsection (3)(b), that it is to be a protected change for the purpose of section 88L, and
	(b) where the adjudicator does so but considers that the change ought not to be protected for the number of years prescribed under subsection (2) of that section, decide that the change is to be protected only for such lesser number of school years as the adjudicator may specify.
	88K Sections 88H to 88J: supplementary
	(1) Subsection (2) applies to any decision of the adjudicator
	(a) under section 88H(4) on whether to uphold an objection to admission arrangements,
	(b) under section 88I(4)(b) or (5)(b) on whether admission arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements, or
	(c) under section 88J(2) as to whether or not it would be appropriate for changes to be made to admission arrangements.
	(2) Any decision of the adjudicator to which this subsection applies is binding on
	(a) the admission authority in question, and
	(b) all persons by whom an objection may be referred to the adjudicator under section 88H(2) or (3) in relation to the admission arrangements.
	(3) In the case of a decision mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b), the adjudicator must publish a report containing the following
	(a) the adjudicator's decision on the objection or (as the case may be) on whether the admission arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements,
	(b) the decision of the adjudicator under section 88J(2)(a), and any decision of the adjudicator under section 88J(2)(b), on whether it would be appropriate for changes to be made to the admission arrangements,
	(c) any decision of the adjudicator
	(i) under section 88J(4)(a) that a change is to be a protected change for the purposes of section 88L, or
	(ii) under section 88J(4)(b) that a change is to be protected only for such lesser number of school years as the adjudicator may specify, and
	(d) the adjudicator's reasons for the decisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).
	(4) Regulations may make provision
	(a) requiring an admission authority for a maintained school in England to provide information which
	(i) falls within a prescribed description, and
	(ii) is requested by the adjudicator for the purposes of the exercise by the adjudicator of functions under sections 88H to 88J or this section or of enabling the adjudicator to decide whether to exercise the power conferred by section 88I(5);
	(b) as to the manner in which a report required to be published under subsection (3) is to be published;
	(c) requiring such matters to be notified to such persons, and in such manner, as may be prescribed;
	(d) prescribing circumstances in which an admission authority may revise the admission arrangements for their school in the light of any decision by the adjudicator relating to the admission arrangements for another school, and the procedure to be followed in such a case.
	(5) In sections 88I and 88J and this section the requirements relating to admission arrangements means the requirements imposed by or under this Part as to the content of admission arrangements for maintained schools in England.
	88L Restriction on alteration of admission arrangements following adjudicator's decision
	(1) This section applies where
	(a) in accordance with section 88J(3)(b) the admissions authority for a maintained school in England have revised any provisions of admission arrangements for a school year, and
	(b) the revisions include any protected change.
	(2) In this section
	protected change means a change which the adjudicator has decided under section 88J(4)(a) is to be a protected change for the purposes of this section;
	the protected provisions, in relation to any admission arrangements, means provisions corresponding to
	(c) provisions so far as implementing a protected change, or(d) provisions so far as revised in accordance with regulations under subsection (6);
	the required number means such number as may be prescribed or such lesser number as is specified by the adjudicator under section 88J(4)(b) in relation to a particular protected change.
	(3) The admission authority for the school
	(a) must incorporate the protected provisions in determining the admission arrangements for each of the required number of school years following the school year mentioned in subsection (1)(a), and
	(b) may not vary those arrangements in such a way as to alter the protected provisions.
	(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to the extent that
	(a) the admission authority are required to determine or vary their admission arrangements in a way which alters the protected provisions in order to comply with any duty imposed on them by regulations under section 88B, or
	(b) the arrangements may be determined or varied in a way which alters those provisions in accordance with regulations under subsection (6).
	(5) Regulations may exclude or modify any provision of section 88C, 88E or 88F in its application to cases to which this section applies.
	(6) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, in a case where this section applies, an admission authority may refer to the adjudicator proposals to determine or vary their admission arrangements in a way which alters the protected provisions.
	(7) Regulations may make provision as to the determination by the adjudicator of any reference made by virtue of subsection (6).
	88M Co-ordination of admission arrangements
	(1) Regulations may require a local education authority in England
	(a) to formulate, for any academic year in relation to which prescribed conditions are satisfied, a qualifying scheme for co-ordinating the arrangements for the admission of pupils to maintained schools in their area, and
	(b) to take prescribed action with a view to securing the adoption of the scheme by themselves and each governing body who are the admission authority for a maintained school in their area.
	(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State may make, in relation to the area of a local education authority in England and an academic year, a scheme for co-ordinating the arrangements, or assisting in the co-ordination of the arrangements, for the admission of pupils to maintained schools in that area.
	(3) A scheme may not be made under subsection (2) in relation to a local education authority and an academic year if, before the prescribed date in the year preceding the year in which that academic year commences
	(a) a scheme formulated by the local education authority in accordance with subsection (1) is adopted in the prescribed manner by the persons mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, and
	(b) the authority provide the Secretary of State with a copy of the scheme and inform the Secretary of State that the scheme has been so adopted.
	(4) Regulations may provide
	(a) that each local education authority in England must secure that, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, no decision made by any admission authority for a maintained school in their area to offer or refuse a child admission to the school is to be communicated to the parent of the child except on a single day, designated by the local education authority, in each year, or
	(b) that, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, a decision made by the admission authority for a maintained school in England to offer or refuse a child admission to the school is not to be communicated to the parent of the child except on a prescribed day.
	(5) In this section
	academic year means a period commencing with 1st August and ending with the next 31st July;
	qualifying scheme means a scheme that meets prescribed requirements.
	(6) Nothing in this section applies in relation to arrangements for the admission to maintained schools of pupils
	(a) who
	(i) have ceased to be of compulsory school age, or
	(ii) will have ceased to be of compulsory school age before education is provided for them at the school, or
	(b) for the purpose of receiving sixth form education.
	88N Further provision about schemes adopted or made by virtue of section 88M
	(1) Regulations may make provision about the contents of schemes under section 88M(2), including provision about the duties that may be imposed by such schemes on
	(a) local education authorities in England, and
	(b) the admission authorities for maintained schools in England.
	(2) Regulations may provide that where a local education authority in England or the governing body of a maintained school in England have, in such manner as may be prescribed, adopted a scheme formulated by a local education authority for the purpose mentioned in section 88M(1)(a), sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) are to apply as if any obligations imposed on the local education authority or governing body under the scheme were duties imposed on them by that Act.
	(3) Regulations may provide that where any decision as to whether a child is to be granted or refused admission to a maintained school in England falls to be made in prescribed circumstances, the decision must, if a scheme adopted or made by virtue of section 88M so provides, be made by the local education authority regardless of whether they are the admission authority for the school.
	(4) Where any decision as to whether a child is to be granted or refused admission to a maintained school is (by virtue of regulations under subsection (3)) made by the local education authority although they are not the admission authority, the governing body of the school must implement the decision.
	(5) Before proposing a scheme for adoption under section 88M(1) a local education authority must comply with such requirements as to consultation as may be prescribed.
	(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may in particular require consultations to be undertaken with a view to securing that the arrangements for the admission of pupils to maintained schools in the areas of different local education authorities are, so far as is reasonably practicable, compatible with each other.
	(7) Before making a scheme under section 88M(2) in relation to the area of any local education authority, the Secretary of State must consult
	(a) the local education authority, and
	(b) any governing body who are the admission authority for a school which appears to the Secretary of State to be a school to which the scheme will apply.
	(8) A scheme made under section 88M(2) may be varied or revoked by the Secretary of State.
	88O Sharing of information by local education authorities
	The Secretary of State may by regulations require local education authorities in England to provide other local education authorities with such information as may be required by them in connection with the exercise of any of their functions under this Chapter.
	88P Reports by local education authorities to adjudicator
	(1) A local education authority in England must make such reports to the adjudicator about such matters connected with relevant school admissions as may be prescribed.
	(2) In subsection (1) relevant school admissions, in relation to a local education authority, means
	(a) the admission of pupils to relevant schools in the authority's area;
	(b) the admission of pupils in the authority's area to other relevant schools;
	(c) the entry to the sixth form of pupils who have been admitted to relevant schools in the authority's area; and
	(d) the entry to the sixth form of pupils in the authority's area who have been admitted to other relevant schools.
	(3) In this section, relevant school means
	(a) a maintained school,
	(b) an Academy,
	(c) a city technology college, or
	(d) a city college for the technology of the arts.
	(4) The matters which may be prescribed under subsection (1) in relation to a report by a local education authority include, in particular, matters relating to
	(a) the determination and operation of admission arrangements for maintained schools in the area of the local education authority;
	(b) the determination and operation of arrangements for the admission of pupils to Academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts in the area of the local education authority;
	(c) the adoption and operation of any scheme, whether or not formulated by the local education authority and whether under section 88M or otherwise, for co-ordinating
	(i) the admission of pupils to relevant schools in their area,
	(ii) the admission of pupils in their area to other relevant schools.
	(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision as to
	(a) the time by which any report under that subsection must be made; and
	(b) the form and content of any such report;
	and may, in particular, require a report to include a statement as to whether or not admission arrangements for maintained schools in the area of the local education authority conform with the requirements imposed by or under this Part as to the content of admission arrangements for maintained schools in England.
	88Q Reports under section 88P: provision of information
	(1) A relevant person must, on request, provide a local education authority in England with such information as the authority may reasonably require for the purpose of enabling the authority to fulfil their duties under section 88P.
	(2) In subsection (1), relevant person, in relation to a local education authority, means
	(a) an admission authority (other than the local education authority) for a maintained school in the area of the local education authority;
	(b) the admission forum for the area of the local education authority;
	(c) any member of an appeal panel constituted under section 94 by
	(i) the local education authority, or
	(ii) the governing body of a foundation or voluntary aided school in the area of the local education authority;
	(d) the proprietor of
	(i) an Academy,
	(ii) a city technology college, or
	(iii) a city college for the technology of the arts,
	in the area of the local education authority;
	(e) any other local education authority in England;
	(f) such other person as may be prescribed.'. [Ed Balls.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Balls: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: (a), in line 10, after 'schools', insert 'and academies'.
	(b), in line 17, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(c), in line 42, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(d), in line 56, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(e), in line 244, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(f), in line 337, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(g), in line 362, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(h), in line 405, after 'schools', insert 'and academies'.
	(i), in line 408, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(j), in line 413, after 'schools', insert 'and academies'.
	(k), in line 427, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(l), in line 432, after 'school', insert 'and academy'.
	(m), in line 494, at end insert 'and admission forum'.
	(n), in line 527, at end insert
	'(d) the number and percentages of first, second and third preferences expressed in accordance with arrangements made under section 86(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act (or more if applicable) which were met and the main factors that affected whether such preferences were met;
	(e) the number of appeals made to the appeal panel within the area of the authority;
	(f) the ethnic and social mix of pupils attending schools in the area of the authority and the factors that affect this;
	(g) the extent to which existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of looked after children, children with disabilities and children with special educational needs;
	(h) how well the admission forum protocol has worked and how many children have been admitted to each school under the protocol;
	(i) whether primary schools are meeting their statutory duties in relation to infant class sizes;
	(j) details of other matters that might affect how fairly admission arrangements serve the interests of children and parents within the authority; and
	(k) any recommendation or recommendations that the forum wishes to make in order to improve parental choice and access to education in the area of the authority.'.
	New clause 18 Selection by aptitude
	'(1) No new or existing maintained school shall select pupils by aptitude.
	(2) For the purposes of this section, maintained school includes all Academies, Specialist, Trust or Foundation Schools.'.
	New clause 19 Parental right to secure attendance at nearest school
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make such provision as he considers necessary which may include the repeal, amendment or revocation of any legislation enacted prior to the coming into effect of this Act, for the purposes of giving full effect to the principle set out in subsection (2).
	(2) The principle referred to in subsection (1) is that the admission authority for each maintained school, following the commencement of a school year on or after 1st August 2011, shall admit all pupils on whose behalf the parent has stated a preference and demonstrated that the school is the nearest to the pupil's home.'.
	New clause 20 Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parent ballot
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make such provision as he considers necessary which may include the repeal, amendment or revocation of any legislation enacted prior to the coming into effect of this Act, for the purposes of giving full effect to the principle set out in subsection (2).
	(2) The principle referred to in subsection (1) is that no admission arrangements for any school providing secondary education may, following the commencement of a school year on or after 1st August 2011 continue to make provision for the selection of pupils by ability or aptitude other than under section 101 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Permitted selection: pupil banding) unless the continuation of such selection has been approved in a ballot of parents of pupils attending primary schools from which such pupils may by choice of their parents transfer.'.
	New clause 21 Abolition of selection by ability before the age of 14
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make such provision as he considers necessary which may include the repeal, amendment or revocation of any legislation enacted prior to the coming into effect of this Act, for the purposes of giving full effect to the principle set out in subsection (2).
	(2) The principle referred to in subsection (1) is that no admission arrangements for any school providing secondary education shall, following the commencement of a school year on or after 1st August 2011 make provision for the selection of pupils under the age of 14 years by ability or aptitude other than under section 101 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Permitted selection: pupil banding).'.
	New clause 22 School admissions: cessation of selection
	'After the school year commencing on or after 1st August 2011, the following shall cease to have effect
	(1) sections 99 to 100, and 102 to 109 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31), and
	(2) subsection (1)(b) of section 39 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c.40).'.
	Government amendments Nos. 119 to 123.
	Government amendments Nos. 133 to 140.

Edward Balls: It is a great honour to speak on Report of this historic Bill to raise the education and training leaving age to 18, and also to move new clause 14 to strengthen the schools admissions code, which I believe is a vital part of the reforms to our education system that we must put in place to make this whole Bill a success. I should like to start by commending Committee members and all the outside experts on the high quality of scrutiny and debate that the Bill received in Committee. I very much enjoyed studying the details of those discussions.
	This is a landmark piece of legislation; it is the biggest reform in educational participation for more than 50 years and the culmination of this House's century-long ambition to deliver educational opportunity for all young people. In Committee, it was widely recognised by Members from all parts of the House that our wider education reformsthose to qualifications, the curriculum, information and guidance, schools and schools admissionswere all necessary steps to take over the next few years to bring our education system into line with the highest performing education systems in the world and to ensure that all our young people have the skills that they need to succeed in the fast-moving global economy.
	Our goal is not simply to preserve opportunity and excellence for some, but to deliver it for all. We recognise that excellence for all demands both that every school is a good school and that every parent should have a fair chance to get their child into a school of their choosing. It is to deliver the goal that every school should be a good one that our national challenge programme will aim to lift all schools above the 30 per cent. threshold in respect of five GCSEs at grades A to C, including English and Maths.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the Minister would confine or relate his remarks to new clause 14.

Edward Balls: Fair admissions are also vital in ensuring universal access to educational opportunity, and excellence for all children and young people. That is why the Education and Inspections Act 2006 introduced the schools admissions code, with cross-party support in Parliament, to ensure a level playing field for all parents and to ban unfair practices, such as interviewing parents or asking them for financial contributions as part of the admissions process. The code has been in operation for just one year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, we have been building on the Select Committee report that preceded it and on the 2006 Act, and I believe that we have made real progress in delivering fair admissions.
	In January, the Minister for Schools and Learners wrote to all local authorities to remind them of their new obligations under the code. Also earlier this year, my Department's officials undertook a spot check on admissions arrangements in three local authority areas. The areas were chosen by officials on the basis that they represented a London borough, a metropolitan borough and a shire county, and were areas where the schools adjudicator had received no complaints about admissions in the first year of the code's operation.
	As we have discussed before in this House, we were taken aback by the findings reported to us. One in six schools in the areas surveyed were found to have been in breach of the admissions code18 schools were in breach on more than three counts. A total of 96 schools had adopted admissions arrangements that were unlawful under the code without any objection having been made to the schools adjudicator.
	In the light of those findings, which I published to Parliament, and following detailed consultation on reforms to strengthen the admissions arrangements, which we have undertaken in recent weeks, the new clause introduces a package of proposals further to strengthen the admissions system on the basis of the announcements that I made to the House on 2 April. We believe that our proposals will constitute a further transparent and important step towards fair admissions.
	The Minister for Schools and Learners wrote to the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee on 8 May to explain the detail of the proposals, and the letter was copied to the members of the Committee and to all Front-Bench spokespeople in the House. A copy of the letter was also placed in the Library. I should like to record that since we started that consultation, and since the proposals were published in draft, the chief schools adjudicator has written to me to welcome them, and I am grateful to him for his support. In addition, we have consulted widely with faith groups and parents groups, which all support the actions that are needed in order to strengthen the code and to ensure fair admissions.
	The new clause and the amendments relate to the code in three areas. First, we need to do more to ensure that the admissions arrangements for all maintained schools are fully consulted on and scrutinised at a local level to ensure that, school by school, they comply with the code, and that therefore they deliver fair admissions for all parents.
	The requirement for admissions arrangements to be consulted on annually, irrespective of whether they have changed since the previous year, is, in our view, an unnecessary burden. Also, parents and their communities are required to play no role in the consultation process. The amendments will therefore allow us to set out in secondary legislation a more flexible and adaptable consultation process, which will enable us more effectively to engage parents and communities.
	It is our intention to consult in the summer on proposals that would require admission authorities to consult on their arrangements not every year, but every three years, to lighten the burden on schools. Where changes are proposed within the three-year period, then, and only then, would a full consultation have to take place. It is our intention at that stage to ensure that parents and communities would be consulted. It is my intention separately but in parallel with that work also to ensure that in local areas elected local councillors can represent their constituents at appeals under the admissions code.
	The second thing that we are doing in relation to the new clause is placing a clear duty on local authorities to report to the schools adjudicator on admission arrangements in their area. That is as part of their responsibility to monitor actively the compliance of admissions arrangements in their areas with the code and with admissions legislation. It is our intention to consult in the summer on regulations that prescribe the exact form, content and timing of those reports.
	Thirdly, I am extending the role of the schools adjudicator so that, rather than being reactive as he is now, he will have a power to consider any admissions arrangements that come to his attention by any means, rather than waiting for complaints or reports to come to him. The schools adjudicator has no power to consider whether a school's admission arrangements are unlawful unless he receives an objection from a local authority, a school, a faith body, a parent or an admissions forum. It is clear to me, on the basis of the evidence I have seen, that the adjudicator's powers do not go far enough. He agrees with that.
	Also, when particular admissions arrangements are referred to the adjudicator by my Department or are highlighted in a local authority report on admissions, the schools adjudicator will be obliged to consider them and to act accordingly. By extending the adjudicator's role in that way, together with the other measures we are introducing through the Bill, we believe that we will be able to ensure greater compliance with the code and achieve fair admissions.
	In fact, we believe that the steps we have taken in recent months will themselves constitute a decisive step towards fair admissions in our country. It is the only way to ensure that not some parents, but all parents, and not some children, but all children, have a fair and equal chance of gaining a place for the child at the school of their choice.
	I should point out, as the letter to the Committee explained, that although those are the three main changes, there are other changes in relation to the new clause, which are consequential amendments Nos. 133 to 140, in particular to reorganise this chapter of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 so it is easier to understand and to draw the distinction between those amendments that relate to England and those that relate to the devolved Administrations.
	I should also briefly mention the amendments to clauses 134 and 135, which we tabled and which were inserted during consideration of the Bill in Committee in the Commons. They support young people in fulfilling their duty to participate in education or training to the age of 18 by giving young people of whatever age the right to express a preference as to which school they want to attend to receive sixth form education, and give young people aged 16 to 18 the right to appeal to an independent panel against decisions made.
	Amendment No. 119 will remove the regulation-making power from clause 134, as the law already provides for children on a roll at a school and transferring to the sixth form to be kept on the roll unless there are lawful grounds for them to be removed. Amendments Nos. 120 to 123 are consequential to clause 135 as a result of amendment No. 119.
	The admissions code demonstrates a substantial step towards fair admissions in our country. As I said, it was passed with cross-party support in the House, and I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, for the work he did and the leadership he gave in delivering that code.

Rob Marris: May I take the Secretary of State back to line 553 of new clause 14, which is on page 2057 of the amendment paper and concerns local education authorities requesting information from certain bodies? Line 553 refers to
	the proprietor of...an Academy...a city technology college, or...a city college for the technology of the arts...in the area of the local education authority.
	Will my right hon. Friend say what is meant by the term the proprietor?

Edward Balls: In that case, I think that it is a technical term. It would refer to the governing body of those schools in those three cases. I shall confirm that when I make my concluding remarks after the debate, but I am sure that that is the case.
	In conclusion, the admissions code was a decisive step forward, but we need to ensure that it is implemented properly and consistently across the country. We have had the support of schools, parents and all the faith groups in taking forward our drive for fair admissions in recent weeks. I hope that we will achieve consensus in the House on new clause 14 and the importance of fair admissions.
	I know that consensus on the Bill has at times proved elusive. We have the support of the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce on the wider debates, but there were differences in Committee that we will hear about later, in particular about the core of the Bill, which is the subject of compulsion. I hope that there will be an opportunity for Opposition Members to change their minds and to join the consensus in the country about the importance of education to 18 being for all young people, not just for some. On admissions, I urge Opposition Members to put politics aside and to support our reforms to deliver a level playing field and fairness for all parents. That is what our new clause will achieve. I hope that we will have the support of all parties today.

Michael Gove: I am sure that I am not alone in the House in being moved by the Secretary of State's plea for consensus and for us all to put aside petty politics in the interests of the nation. It is a great pity that the right hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) are not in the Chamber to hear that plea.
	I am also conscious of the way the Secretary of State framed the debate, and the way he talked about the importance of ensuring that everyone has the right to participate in education and training until the age of 18. As the Secretary of State will recall from Second Reading, and from the points that were made so well by my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) in Committee, the Opposition are committed to education not only until the age of 18 but beyond. We are committed to lifelong learning, to expanding university participation and to ensuring that every child who wishes to has the opportunity to allow their talent

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not on Third Reading. We are addressing the contents of new clause 14.

Michael Gove: I am sure that if the Secretary of State wishes to refresh his memory on our views, he can do so by reading  Hansard. I would recommend that exercise to all.
	We all want admissions to be fair. We all want equity and transparency in admissions. As the Secretary of State, typically generous and consensual, pointed out, we played a part in ensuring that the admissions code formed part of the Education and Inspections Bill. I remember that the Secretary of State was less keen on that Bill as a Back Bencher than some, but, nevertheless, with the help of Conservative votes and after considerable soothing of the fevered brows of Labour Back Benchers, that legislation made its way on to the statute book.
	When it comes to discussing admissions, the Government do not come to the debate with entirely clean hands. We saw the approach that the Secretary of State and his team take to admissionshe alluded to this casejust a few weeks ago. It was not an edifying spectacle. I shall turn in a second to what that episode reveals and how it inevitably affects the discussion of these amendments. First, however, I shall deal with the broader philosophical question behind admissions and the Government's approach to them, as well as our approach and that of the other Opposition parties.
	Unfortunately, there is still an old Labour, socialist approach to the question of admissions. It is not restricted merely to the Back Benches graced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), but is evident in Sanctuary buildings, too. It is the Secretary of State's belief that what really matters is manipulating access to a limited number of good school places, instead of expanding their number overall. If only he would commit as much intellectual energy to generating more good school places as he does to the micro-management of their allocation, this country would be in a better place and his political reputation would rank higher today.

Rob Marris: Not possible!

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for displaying a spirit of loyalty that is sadly lacking at the moment on the Labour Bank Benches. No doubt it will stand him in good stead in whatever reshuffle we inevitably see after 22 May.
	The Government's approach to admissions has been described by some as bleeding heart Stalinism. In the Soviet Union, the production and enjoyment of a few worthwhile goods such as Zil limousines were restricted

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the contents of new clause 14 and the amendments grouped with it. Perhaps he will address his remarks accordingly.

Michael Gove: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. My contention is that those who criticise the Government for their approach to admissions are on to something. Instead of ensuring a genuine expansion in the number of good school places, the Government want to ration the limited number of such places.
	In Soviet Russia, there were a few goods that were worth while, such as Zil limousines, and they were reserved for the nomenklatura, the bureaucratic elite. As far as this Government are concerned, there are a few good school places and they will be allocated at random or through the admissions code. They believe that that is enough to justify their approach to education. Instead of concentrating and devoting their intellectual energy to generating more good school places, for the Government it is a matter of dividing up what already existsa classic left-wing approach.

Stephen Ladyman: I cannot help but point out to the hon. Gentleman that he seems to be describing in great detail what happens in Kent. There, access to good school places is limited by the Conservative council to those pupils who can pass the 11-plus examination. The admissions process is geared to making sure that they get two first choices in the admissions procedure, rather than the one to which everyone else is restricted. How does the hon. Gentleman think we should address that problem?

Michael Gove: I am interested in the question of selection, and note that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) has tabled an amendment that deals with the broader issue of selection at 11 and grammar schools. My party shares what I think was the view of the former Prime Minister: we believe that in counties where selection still occursKent and Buckinghamshire, for exampleit is a matter for local people to decide. The arrangements in place should remain as long as they command popular support. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that view, I am delighted; but if he takes issue with it, that is a matter for him and his constituents.

Stephen Ladyman: I certainly support the Government's position that it should be a matter for local choice but, as I shall set out later, the problem is that in Kent the rules currently require us to get up a petition of more than 40,000 namestogether with a whole raft of information to verify that they are the correct peoplebefore we can have a referendum. If, at some point in the future, I can convince my Front-Bench colleagues that they should simplify the process so that we can have a referendum on selection in Kent once and for all, will the hon. Gentleman support me in that?

Michael Gove: No, but I look forward to the discussions that the hon. Gentleman is going to have with his Front-Bench colleagues.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: I am delighted to give way to the Minister.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. While we are on the subject of grammar schools, I should say that there has been some uncertainty about his position. If an authority such as Tory Buckinghamshire wanted to build new grammar schools, would he support that?

Michael Gove: My position is that where, for reasons of demographic change, there is any need to expand the provision of grammar school places, we should allow the existing legislative framework to govern the process.

David Laws: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that under the existing legislative process he would have to table an amendment to allow for a new grammar school?

Michael Gove: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must stop this discussion on grammar schools. I remind all hon. Members that we are discussing new clause 14 and admissions policy.

Michael Gove: It is always a pleasure to receive your rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	In the debate on grammar schools, some people sometimes take the view that intake determines how good a school is, and that if we manipulate that, we fix everything. The view is taken by some on the extreme left and by others who are stuck in the past. My view is that it is not the social engineering of the intake that makes a good school, but getting the basics right. If a school has the right ethos and good behaviour and discipline, if its leadership team inculcates appropriate values in all those associated with the school, and if high standards are the school's watchword, any school, no matter how challenging its intake, can be good. Iand, I am sure, the Secretary of Statehave seen schools with uniquely challenging intakes produce superb results. I have also seen schools in relatively privileged areas where high standards have not been the norm, and where expectations have not been as high as they should be. Those schools have been underperforming.
	It is my contention that deprivation is not destiny. It is the quality of the school, not the background of the intake, that is the decisive factor. It should be the mission of hon. Members from across the House to drive up standards, whatever a school's intake, and to concentrate on the changes that will generate improvements.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has said something with which I can agree wholeheartedly, so may I recommend to him the research done by Professor Jesson at York university? He has clearly demonstrated that in areas where selection is the norm, standards of teaching in grammar schools, measured on an added value basis, are far worse than in schools that have a comprehensive ethos, or where pupils are not selectively chosen. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in genuinely driving up standards, will he study that research, and if he agrees with its conclusions, will he join me in my campaign against selection?

Michael Gove: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his commitment to evidence-based policy making. I will look with interest at the research that he mentions, but my assessment, from all the educational research that I have read, is that the debate is a red herring. Ultimately, it is what happens in schools, and not how they select their intake, that determines how successful they are. However, he makes his point courteously, so I shall take the trouble to get hold of the research that he mentions.
	There has been a measure of agreement among Front Benchers and Back Benchers about the importance of recognising and celebrating good schools and the ethos that makes them distinctive and successful. The worrying thing about the Government's approach to admissions and the admissions code is that they have alienated good heads and have undermined good schools. In March, as the Secretary of State pointed out, the Government rushed out an announcement in which they drew attention to what they perceived to be numerous infractions of the admissions code. The timing of the announcement was curious: it was made on the same day that we discovered that one in five parents found their children had been denied their choice of school. Headlines would have underlined the extent of Government failure to generate enough good school places. Curiously, instead of explaining why that had taken place, the Government attacked successful schools. Why? Well, I can only quote the words of Joshua Rowe, one of the governors of King David high school in Manchester, who said:
	this is a political stunt and smokescreen; a diversion from the real issues of failing schools.
	I can only quote the Church of England's chief education officer, Jan Ainsworth, who said:
	The Secretary of State must have known his decision to go public in this way would result in hostile coverage. There is a real feeling of betrayal by the minister, and some anxiety about the direction of future relationships with his department.
	It was not only Jan Ainsworth who spoke up on behalf of the Church of England. Colin Hopkins, secretary to the Dearing review commissioned under the previous Prime Minister, stated that as a result of what Ministers had said the public had been given an
	outrageously false impression of our schools.
	Listening to the Secretary of State, one would have got the impression that faith leaders welcomed his intervention the other month, but all those directly involved in the provision of faith education pointed out that the style, manner and content of the ministerial intervention was directly hostile to the ethos of those good schools.
	It was not just faith leaders who made that point. Conor Ryan, who was not just special adviser to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when he was Secretary of State, but adviser on public service reform to the former Prime Minister, also pointed out that the problem with turning the issue that the present Secretary of State deliberately chose to raise into a cause clbre is that it
	alienates many of the good school leaders whom the Government need if they are to tackle failing schools.
	Denounced by governors, criticised by the Church of England, held to account by those in the front line and damned by the man who was responsible for the education reforms that genuinely marked out the first few years of the Government as distinctivenot a happy position for the Secretary of State.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman has used the noun three times, but what does ethos mean in the present context?

Michael Gove: A good question. Ethos refers, inevitably, to the qualities that a school has that make it distinctive and special, the qualities that parents admire and pupils appreciatea commitment to discipline, to high standards, to making sure that an academic curriculum is available to all, a belief that every child, properly taught and appropriately nurtured, can achieve more than the parents may ever have envisaged.
	One of the distinctive features of faith schools is that, whether actuated by the individual tenets of the beliefs that motivated the founders or by the commitment of those within them to good education, they consistently outperform the mean level of other schools. They are something to be cherished, something that the previous Prime Minister made it clear that he cherished, and they are schools that, unfortunately, feel demoralised and under attack as a result of the Secretary of State's interventionnot a happy moment in his career.
	What was the consequence of the Secretary of State's intervention? We had lurid headlines about cash for places. Any suggestion that cash was determining access would have been worth objecting to, but there was no evidence that cash was determining access. As I pointed out on the Floor of the House, the money that was required and requested by those schools was required and requested for good reasons and entirely consistent with established practice, not affected by the clauses and amendments that we are discussing today.
	It was the case that the money that was asked for specifically by Jewish faith schools was to provide the physical security of those children, who face a renewed and increased threat of anti-Semitic attack, and it was also required to pay for the explicitly religious Jewish studies, which are not covered by the amount of money that the DCSF remits for education in those schools. So it is entirely understandable that there should be a request for purely voluntary contributions.
	Within the community concerned, people knew that the contributions were entirely voluntary. It is the case, as was pointed out by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, that in some of those schools a third of parents or less are paying the voluntary contributions requested. If it was the case that those voluntary contributions constituted a barrier, if it was the case that they determined entry, why in those schools would so few be making that contribution? When the Secretary of State launched that attack, he was not aware of the precise figures, how many people had paid or their circumstances. If he had been, I doubt very much whether he would have launched his ill considered attack.

David Laws: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the timing of the Government announcement, but is he saying that he is comfortable with maintained schools asking for voluntary donations in that way? Does he not see the obvious risk?

Michael Gove: I appreciate that when it comes to asking for any contribution sensitivity must be applied, but that sensitivity cuts both ways. It is important to ensure that schools ask for a contribution after admissions have been granted and in a way that ensures that members of the community are fully aware of how that money will be deployed. But it is also incumbent on the Secretary of State to show sensitivity to minority faith groups. If he believes, and I believe, that the situation could have been improved, he had a choice. His choice was publicly to name and shame schools in a way that led them to believe that their position was under threat, to see those schools criticised, and to see their names appear in the press under the allegation that there was somehow a cash for access scam operating. The Secretary of State will have an opportunity later in this debate to disavow that implication, apologise for the coverage that his intervention generated and put on the record his admiration for those schools and his regret at his and his Department's clumsiness. I look forward to that; it would be a gracious acknowledgement that would do him great credit.

Edward Balls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: I am delighted to.

Edward Balls: As the hon. Gentleman knows, since I became Secretary of State I have said many times that I fully support faith schools, including Jewish faith schools. Is he really saying that, if he had been in my position, with the clear information that a number of schools were making contributions part of the admission process in direct contradiction of the law, he would have chosen not to make that information availablenot just to the schools themselves, but to parents in the area? Is he really saying that he would have decided to deny the public that information?

Michael Gove: I would have verified my facts before calling a press conference at a politically convenient time to cover my embarrassment and make schools the victims of a witch hunt. The Secretary of State owes it to those schools to offer not vanilla words of support, but proper words of regret and an acknowledgement of the hurt that they and their governing bodies felt and of the difficulties that they faced in the national press as a result. If the Secretary of State did that, I would be grateful and we could move on to discuss other aspects of what he proposes. It is interesting that, even at this stage, the Secretary of State, in a hole, insists on digging.

Edward Balls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: I shall be delighted to.

Edward Balls: The only person who has used the words witch hunt about this matter is the hon. Gentleman. He should apologise to me and my Department for using such language when he knows full well that we entirely support Jewish schools and voluntary contributions for security and ethos, although we also want fair admissions for parents.
	We did verify with individual schools before we went public. The hon. Gentleman should apologise to me; his use of intemperate and divisive language has brought politics into fair admissions, something that previously had cross-party support. I make no apologies to parents in this country for driving forward fair admissions. The hon. Gentleman should apologise to me.

Michael Gove: I certainly will not be responding to that intemperate and ill judged contribution from the Secretary of State.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members of the words of Erskine May: it is important that temperate language be used in debates in the House.

Michael Gove: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Tom Peryer, the director of education at the London Diocesan Board for Schools, wrote to the Secretary of State after the various statements. Mr. Peryer said that he wished to express on behalf of faith schools his disappointment and consternation at how the exercise was conductedthe clear inaccuracies and subsequent naming and shaming of schools when some schools were not guilty as charged. He objected to the highly questionable interpretations by officials of certain aspects of the code, to the inadequate communication and to how the exercise was publicised. Speaking on behalf of faith organisations, I have consistently cited individuals who were disappointed and experienced consternation at the way the Secretary of State and his Ministers acted. I am delighted to be able to act as their advocate in this place.

Edward Balls: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the statement from the Church of England? On 11 March, the day we made the statement, it said:
	We fully support the challenge issued by the Secretary of State where schools have not heeded the Admissions Code. There is no excuse for not complying with the law in this area.
	The fact is that the Board of Deputies, the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England all supported our measures and drive for fair admissions. The hon. Gentleman should be supporting us and the faith groups, rather than trying to sow division. He should be on the side of parents, which is where I am.

Michael Gove: The Secretary of State was responsible for making the statement that generated the responses; I did not ask Tom Peryer, Joshua Rowe or any of the headmasters or governors who contacted me to make their statements. It was the Secretary of State who deliberately sought to politicise the issue with his statement and to publicise things in a way that caused the disappointment and consternation that I have referred to.

David Chaytor: The shadow Secretary of State has been speaking for nearly 25 minutes about an incident that occurred four or five months ago. I am waiting to hear what he has to say about new clause 14.

Michael Gove: I have tried to allow every intervention to be made and to allow this debate to be as full as possible. We made it clear in our opposition to the programme motion that we felt there was inadequate time to debate the very serious issues surrounding admissions and to debate the other issues surrounding the raising of the participation age. Let us be clear that it is the Government who tabled the new clause and consequent amendments. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the lack of time to debate [ Interruption. ] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), intervenes from a sedentary position; if he would like to make a proper intervention, I would be delighted to take it.

Edward Balls: Does the hon. Gentleman support new clause 14?

Michael Gove: I am outlining our approach, and the Secretary of State will have to wait for a Division to be called when we will give him our position on that. Following all the interventions that hon. Gentlemen have been kind and wise enough to make, I am attempting to answer their points and to ensure that we have adequate debate. That is always my aim. The hon. Gentleman from the Government Whips Office just said that we had agreed to the programme motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made clear, that was before the Government made a number of changes to today's business.  [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a considerable amount for discussion in the new clauses and amendments before the House. May I suggest that we now proceed down that route?

Michael Gove: Delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	One of the central aspects of the admissions code covered by the new clause and amendments is the priority given to children who are in carelooked-after children. We agree that it is important that those children receive absolute priority in the admissions process.  [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State says that they were not getting that. Let me refer him to evidencesomething that was absent in much of his speechfrom the London Diocesan Board for Schools. In his letter to the Secretary of State, Tom Peryer referred to the
	public naming and shaming of schools
	covered by the new clause in a
	'score-sheet' handed out to journalists.
	He points out that that
	would have been regrettable even if all the allegations
	made by the Secretary of State and his Department
	were true, but in a number of instances they were not.
	He goes on to give examples. Four schools in the London diocese were explicitly named by the Department as schools that failed to prioritise children in care correctly. Tom Peryer says that
	therefore the impression given is that those C of E schools are heartless in turning away the most vulnerable. However, those four schools did prioritise children in care correctly. The officials checking the letter interpreted the fact that those schools included a statement seeking corroborating information from a local authority that a child was indeed in public care as a request for justification as to why the school was the most suitable. This is not the case and the charge of non-compliance rests on an erroneous interpretation of what the school statement said. If indeed their statements are against the code then local authorities should also be found guilty because the common application form for Barnet and for other local authorities in London also requires evidence from the relevant social worker/authority. A few of our schools have had requests or applications from relatives of children who
	believe themselves to be
	'looking after' a child for the child's parents
	and believe that they would therefore be able to go to the top of the priority list. All that those schools were seeking to do was to be true to the spirit of the admissions code and to give proper priority to looked-after children. Yet those schools, in being true to their Christian mission, were named and shamed by the Secretary of State.
	I am afraid that the whole episode has been a deeply regrettable exercise on the part of the Secretary of State in seeking to put politics before policy. One of the welcome aspects of the amendments is their bolstering and strengthening of the role of the school adjudicator, given that the way in which the Secretary of State has used his powers causes Conservative Members great concern about whether he has the genuine best interests of the vulnerable most at heart.
	When we have an admissions code agreed by all parties, it is absolutely vital that its implementation should be as consensual and considerate as possible. The Secretary of State's approach to the existing admissions code earlier this year showed that it was an instrument that could not be trusted in his hands.
	We welcome some of the signs of contrition that the Government have shown in the way they have approached the matter. The article that the Secretary of State wrote in the  Jewish Chronicle and the visit that the Minister for Schools and Learners made to the Board of Deputies are acknowledgments that the issue was mishandled and required better handling. When the Secretary of State returns to the issue, it is important that he give us a fuller and better explanation of the way in which the admissions code will be framed in the future. In the new clauses we are debating and some of the subsequent amendments, the Secretary of State and his Ministers acknowledge that it is appropriate to consult on precise implementation of aspects of that code.
	One of the questions that concerns Jewish schools is that many of them have requested a ketubah, or marriage certificate, in order to ensure that those who are applying to that school are properly married in accordance with Jewish religious law. I understand why the admissions code is chary about asking for proof of marriage, for all sorts of entirely understandable reasons, which I shall not detain the House by going into now. It is important, however, that the Secretary of State makes it clear that he will be appropriately sensitive and recognise that it is legitimate for Jewish and other faith schools to ask for proof of religious commitment and membership of the appropriate religious community. I look forward to hearing that assurance on the Floor of the House.
	One of the other questions that has been raised by certain headmasters in connection with the admissions code and the new clauses is the way in which behaviour cannot be a determining factor when it comes to guaranteeing access to the sixth form of a particular school. One of the questions we would like elucidation onI am not making the matter party political; we are curious because we are accurately reflecting, as we have done throughout the debate, the concerns of those who run good schoolsis the Government's view on the concerns raised by headmasters, such as the headmaster of Hasmonean, and teachers about the way in which they might be compelled to accept children into sixth form whose behaviour has been less than it should be, particularly when the ethos of those schools matters so much to them. I know that the head teacher of Hasmonean has written to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Schools and Learners, so if he cannot give us detail now, perhaps it would be appropriate for him to provide elucidation at another point.
	There is another question relating to ethos. In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I defined ethos in my own way, but there was a specific objection from Ministers, in the context of the admissions code, to the use of the word ethos because they feared it could create a barrier in certain circumstances. Schools that believe that their distinctive religious ethos is central to their education mission need elucidation as to how it can be protected in the context of the schools adjudicator's new powers. All that would be helpful.
	Those are detailed questions that go to the heart of the admissions code, but I make those points now because they are points I have been asked to raise by people who felt hurt and bruised by the process that the Secretary of State and his Department indulged in earlier. We have not had an opportunity to hold the Secretary of State to account for his behaviour during that period. Many in the communities affected have formed a judgment of his approach to their faith and their schools as a result of his actions. This debate provides the Secretary of State with an opportunity to apologise; I hope that he will have the grace to do so.

Barry Sheerman: It was as long ago as July 2004 that the previous Select Committee on Education and Skills published its report on admissions in secondary education. It has taken some time for the recommendations to work their way through to a Bill that I hope will soon become the law of the land. It has been refreshing to see just how far the Government have accepted the recommendations that we made on an all-party, non-partisan basis.
	I was a little saddened by the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) because it was about not whether we want to reform the admissions system to make it fair but a specific episode. He said that the Opposition were trying to reflect the views of those who run schools. We were concerned about exactly that when we took the evidence on which our admissions report was based.
	Time and again, when head teachers and others were pressed about whether they honoured the admissions code, it was obvious from their answers that they did not. They pointed out that it was an advisory code and that the advice to a head teacher or board of governors was that they should take note of it, but did not have to do anything about it. Several head teachers told menicely, politely and modestlythat they had no looked-after children in their school and hardly any special educational needs children. When I or my colleagues intervened to ask the reason and point out that the admissions code should be prioritised, we got a sweet smile and the reply, We take note of the code.
	I have sometimes been accused of being anti-faith school. I am notindeed, some hon. Members might know that I was parliamentary church warden at St. Margaret's for seven years. I am still a Christian, however bad. The contribution of faith schools over hundreds of years to our education system is magnificent. Although many of us, if starting anew, might change some aspects of their role, they are part of a rich history, and we are where we are.
	We did not take evidence from Jewish schools, but we took much from Anglican and Catholic schools, which appeared to have an unerring ability to exclude poor childrenI put it as bluntly as that. By some method in their admissions codeI do not know whether it was planned or plotted; I doubt itChristian foundations, whether Catholic or Anglican, reached a comfortable arrangement whereby desirable schools could exclude children in need. There is a rich tradition of Christians setting up some of the greatest public schools, which were originally established to look after and educate poor Christian souls. Many of those public schools do not do that much any longer. However, I was astonished, as Chairman of the Select Committee, to witness the ability to stop poor children, disadvantaged children, children with special educational needs and looked-after children from getting into Anglican and Catholic schools. I suspect that those schools slipped into that, through custom and practice, over a long time.
	The Select Committee report stated that we should have an obligatory code that schools and governing bodies must obey, and that calling in a schools adjudicator should be made easy. Until now, a schools adjudicator could come in only in special circumstances, which would often embarrass a few people in the community. It would be clear that one school had complained about another, and the camaraderie among head teachers meant that one did not do that. It appeared to the Committee that the rules were stacked against fair access. Surely the new clause tackles that, and we should accept it. I have never listened only to the views of those running such schools. Indeed, many of the people who gave evidence to the Committee did not seem to be too concerned about fair access. The current, mandatory code will put that right and new clause 14 is essential in delivering that.
	I do not want to make a long speech. I do not want to be too partisan, but we had reached the stage at which somebody had to make an example of some of those schools. Not only was the code and the schools adjudicator made obligatory, but when research was conducted in three local authorities we found that some schools were still not conforming to the new rules of the game. There comes a point at which any Secretary of State who wants to take a firm view on fair admissions has to say, Okay, we don't want to, but we're going to make an example of someone. There will be bad publicity if people don't get out of their rather comfortable habit of excluding children who have a right to be in a school.
	To conclude, new clause 14 is right. I have spent a few hours today and yesterday in various studios and elsewhere, giving the Government quite a hard time on testing and assessment. However, I am switching modes in this short speech to say that I hope that it will not take as longnearly four yearsto reform our testing and assessment practices. In this case, however, do not let the House be ungrateful for what I think has been the perfect working of educational reform. The Education and Skills Committee did not make things up; it listened to the oral evidence and read the written evidence. We picked up on the feeling that something was deeply wrong with admissions policy and that it was not fair. We made a recommendation on an all-party basis and the Government have eventually taken note. That is good parliamentary practice and now good legislation.

David Laws: I shall not speculate on the timing of the announcement of Government new clause 14 or the motives that informed it. I simply say that we are happy to support it and believe it necessary to address some of the unfair practices used in admissions over the years, which have been identified in many reports, including the Education and Skills Committee report three years ago.
	We have two concerns about admissions, which informed our attitude to not only new clause 14 but new clause 18, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends. First, we want to ensure that pupils and parents can choose schools, so that schools are not choosing parents and pupils to select their way to better performance. We want to ensure that the consumer rather than the producer is in the driving seat, if I may put the matter that way without provoking any comment from those on the Benches behind me.
	We also seek to challenge the extraordinarily high levels of social segregation that remain in the school system, which the Secretary of State mentioned and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) would acknowledge. Some of those elements of social segregation exist because of schools' catchment areas and are difficult to address without using more complex admissions procedures and selective devices. However, where there are elements of unfair admissions that we can address, we surely should address them. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is quite possible for schools in deprived catchment areas to perform well, even with the challenging youngsters they often have, he will know that the results in our school system are, generally speaking, driven by a school's social composition and its admissions practices.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath recently received a very interesting parliamentary answer, which I managed to steal from under his nose to use in some of the press coverage, so good was it. He asked the Secretary of State to break down the 600 or so schools that were failing to hit the Government's target of 30 per cent. five A* to C GCSEs, including English and maths, and to identify how many schools in each decile, according to deprivation, were failing to hit that target. The results were pretty astonishing, and they demonstrated what I assume the hon. Gentleman wanted them to demonstrate. They showed that 54 per cent. of schools in the most deprived decile failed to achieve the Government's target. I believe that the comparable figure in the top decile was 3 per cent., so we know that there are extraordinarily high levels of social deprivation in schools in this country, and we also know that they have a powerful impact on driving opportunities for young people.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has just made some very good points about social deprivation, but I want to bring him back to the issue of pupils choosing schools, rather than schools choosing pupils. Can he assure me that that Liberal Democrat policy will apply to the party's candidates in Kent, because I have now been opposed at three general elections by a Liberal Democrat candidate who was fully committed to grammar schools and to selection at the age of 11?

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my comments on new clauses 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, and I shall come to that point in a few minutes.
	Regardless of the report that informed the Secretary of State's announcement a couple of months ago, this element of unfair admission practices should not have come as a surprise to his Department, not only because of the report that the Select Committee produced a couple of years ago but because of the research commissioned by the Department over the past six months. I refer in particular to the DCSF paper on secondary school admissions, which was commissioned by his Department and bears the departmental imprint. It was released in January 2008 and contained work undertaken by Sheffield Hallam university and by the National Centre for Social Research on behalf of the Department.
	That research identified some of the unfair practices that new clause 14 seeks to address. It also highlighted other concerns about the way in which the admissions system concentrates educational need in certain establishments but not in others. The findings in the report tally with other parts of the Select Committee's report, to which I will refer in a minute. It stated:
	Procedural non-compliance and covert selection on the part of schools is only a part of the reason for segregated intakes.
	It went on to look at some of the other driving forces behind segregated intakes, including the present aspects of selection in the education system. Some of those aspects have been grandfathered in our system for some time now through grammar schools, but there are other aspects of selection in the system, including selection that has been brought in by this Government since 1997 under the guise of the ability to select by aptitude. That is the issue that new clause 18 seeks to address.

Rob Marris: I confess that I am not an education expert, and I have never understood the difference between selection by aptitude and selection by ability. New clause 18 refers to selection by aptitude. Does the hon. Gentleman encompass in the word aptitude the concept of ability, or does he distinguish between aptitude and ability? If so, will he explain how he does that?

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I will tell him in a minute what the Government's response to that question is. He will probably know, as an assiduous Back Bencher, that the Select Committee investigated this precise point in its report of 2004. It said that it could find
	neither evidence of a meaningful distinction between aptitude and ability nor evidence relating to the purpose or justification for selection by aptitude.
	I know that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Select Committee Chairman, was in constructive mode in his earlier comments. I pay tribute to the report that he and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), drew up a number of years ago, which was clearly ahead of its time in respect of Government policy. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps a little generous, however, in overlooking some of the other parts of that Select Committee report on admissions, which the Government have yet to address. Some of the issues are dealt with in new clause 18 on selection by aptitude.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I was speaking to new clause 14? Others have drifted into areas beyond it, but I tried to stick to that new clause.

David Laws: I appreciate how disciplined our Select Committee Chairman is, but we are dealing with a group of amending provisions, which allows me to talk more widely and to tempt the hon. Gentleman into doing the same. Paragraphs 200 and 201 were not at all generous about the Government's policy of selection by aptitude. Let me remind Members who may not have a copy of the report precisely what they said:
	Given the well established links between social class and attainment and the Government's stated commitment to social inclusion and equity, the integrity of the Government's commitment to aptitude testing is hard to defend without clear evidence of its educational benefit. We have not been made aware of any such educational benefits. Nor have we been made aware of any means by which aptitude can be assessed without reference to ability.
	The conclusion was:
	Aptitude tests are an additional and unnecessary complication in the schools admissions process. Moreover, the resources invested by schools in running these tests are significant both financially and in terms of staff time.
	It is particularly interesting to look at the evidence recently commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which I commend particularly for its paper on secondary school admissions.

Barry Sheerman: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman, in case he thinks that I have just rolled over and let the Government step over me, that I still believe in every word in that report. I am sure that that is true of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and, indeed, of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). We all believe what was said about the 10 per cent. and we still stand by it.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Select Committee Chairman for assuring us that he is not going to roll over on any of these issues and that he will continue to adopt the robust position that he has on this and other issues. I would say to him that the Department's own research also seems to be catching up on this issue raised in the Select Committee report compiled by him and his colleagues back in 2004. As well as identifying that some existing unfair practices needed to be done away with, the report noted the quite significant increase in percentage terms in the use of the power to select by aptitude.
	Some hon. Members may be surprised to know that it is not only the schools defined as specialist schools that have the power to select by aptitude, as any maintained school that considers itself to have a specialism is able to select in that way. It is interesting to note the extent to which that power for secondary schools to select by aptitude has grown over the past few years. In 2000, only 1.3 per cent. of schools used that power, which had grown to 3 per cent. by 2001 and was up to 4 per cent. in 2006. As the number of specialist schools grows, of course, the power to select by aptitude grows with it.
	The Government say that they do not know how many schools exercise their freedom to select by aptitude, but it looks from the data as if the proportion of children within our schools system who are selected by aptitude is now larger than the number selected by ability through the grammar school system. The latest data for grammar schools show that about 4.7 per cent. of the school cohort are selected by ability. If selection by aptitude has continued to grow since 2006, we will be very close to that figure.

Stephen Ladyman: I must point out the logical flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Grammar schools' selection by ability is concentrated in a couple of areas where the level of selection is very high, but the hon. Gentleman is comparing that figure with selection by aptitude, which is averaged over the whole country. The two figures cannot be compared.

David Laws: I am pointing out that the Government and most of their Back Benchers who committed to halt an expansion in admission by ability or aptitude are now involved in a quite large experiment in which those forms of selection are increasingly used. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report that his Government Department and the Secretary of State commissioned on this issue. I hope that the Secretary of State has had a chance to see its conclusions, because the Government's own research shows that
	there are strong arguments to suggest that selection by aptitude is likely to be socially selective by default. A high relative attainment in any of the subjects... will involve expense of resources of time and money for travelling, equipment and training. More affluent families have more of these resources as well as more social and cultural capital. In addition, parents from higher socio-economic groups tend to be more active in choosing a school and to be more willing for their children to travel away from their nearest school... so they may be more likely to apply for the aptitude places.
	That brings us back to the issues in the Select Committee's path-breaking report of 2004. The Government are proposing measures to get rid of unfairness in admissions as set out in new clause 14 and Government-commissioned research suggests that they should be considering removing the ability to select a proportion of pupils by aptitude. There is now a growing consensus that this is a big issue in the schools system and that it can lead to social segregation, as shown in the Government's own research as well as that by the Select Committee.
	Even policy groups associated with the right in British politics have begun to criticise this aspect of selection. I draw hon. Members' attention to the paper by the Policy Exchange, which I believe is a think-tank quite closely associated with the Conservative party. It published a paper entitled Helping Schools to Succeed at the beginning of this year. Its recommendation 21 is to end the practice of selection by aptitude at all state-funded schools. I know that we shall come on to debate some of the wider issues of selection by ability in a few moments.

Michael Gove: Purely for the benefit of the House, I would like to say that I used to be chairman of Policy Exchange, but before it enjoyed its current level of success, which post-dated my departure. I did not write that report. Although it has many good things in it, it contains one or two recommendations that we do not endorseand what the hon. Gentleman mentioned is one of them.

David Laws: There are also one or two Conservative policies that are not endorsed in this paper, but I may be steering rather wide of the new clauses before us. I was not attempting to draw the hon. Gentleman, as Conservative spokesman, into responsibility for this paper; I was merely pointing out that issues about selection, admissions and social segregation within the schools system are shared across the political divide.

Nick Gibb: If the hon. Gentleman's thesis about social segregation is right, how does he account for Mossbourne community academy, where 50 per cent. of the intake qualify for free school meals? It is in the most deprived part of Hackney, yet it is on target to achieve 80 per cent. of children getting five or more GCSEs, including English and maths, and has a truly comprehensive intake. How does it achieve that with all its social problems?

David Laws: In fairness, I said that it is rightI very much agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heaththat individual schools are capable of performing outside their social intake with strong leadership and good education. However, anyone who denies that there is a strong correlation between the social intake of a school and its results has only to look at the parliamentary answers that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is getting back from the Government, which show in the starkest terms the link between social class and educational performance. Although it may be true that some of those schools suffer from the inability to attract high-quality school leadership, given the tough conditions that they face, it is difficult to argue that the big gaps in performance are simply due to the effectiveness of the teaching rather than the social composition of the schools, which has a powerful influence even though individual schools can clearly perform far better, or in some cases far worse, than their social catchment would indicate.

Paul Holmes: Perhaps I can throw some light on the previous intervention. I will not comment on the academy mentioned, because I have never been there or studied it, but what is importantI have seen this in the selection process of some academiesis which children with free school meals the school takes in. If, for example, it takes in children with free school meals who have supportive parents who come to several evening meetings and a Saturday meeting before they apply to enter the academy, it will get a certain type of child with free school meals. The parents of children with free school meals who come from dysfunctional families will not come to three evening meetings and a Saturday meeting before filling in the application form for the academy.

David Laws: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, although not one, as he knows from our earlier conversations, that I entirely agree with, because most of the evidence for most of the academies shows that they are selecting a deprived intake, often more deprived even than their local catchment area.

Paul Holmes: As my hon. Friend says, we disagree on this. Academies that take over from failing schools will inherit those deprived catchment areas. The question is what academies will be like two, five or 10 years down the line. Most have been in existence for too short a time to tell, but city technology colleges, which were academies under another name and set up by a previous Government, have been around for a long time. The evidence is that they select enormously.

David Laws: I think that my hon. Friend is strongly supporting my point about getting rid of covertor overtmechanisms to select by aptitude and ability. In the case of the city technology colleges set up by the Conservatives, I suspect that the evidence indicates that many of them were not set up in deprived catchment zones from the very beginning. The free school meal percentage for many of them is extraordinarily low. However, I share his view that we must ensure, both through this mechanism and the way in which banding is used, that we do not allow any school simply to improve its performance by changing its intake. That is important if the academy programme is to prove itself.
	If I cannot persuade the Government to accept new clause 18, I hope that we will divide on the issue later. It is important. It clearly has not been dealt with by new clause 14, and the recommendation was in the Select Committee report. Although it is welcome that the Government have caught up with its recommendations of four years ago on unfair admissions, they have not caught up on the issue of selection by aptitude. That is why we have tabled new clause 18.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall not detain the House for long because it has heard my views on the subject on numerous occasions, but I shall continue to bang away at it until something is done.
	I fully support what the Government are attempting to do. The rules on admissions procedures are difficult to understand and lead to many anomalies and controversies in local areas. Schools are obviously trying to get around the existing set of rules in some cases and suffering as a consequence in others. The Government have acted correctly in trying to set out rules that will govern admissions procedures around the country. I have no problem if, in doing that, they followed recommendations of the Select Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said. All I ask is that that same fairnessthe same set of criteriabe applied to the children of my constituency in South Thanet.
	South Thanet is in Kent, and in Kent the educational reforms of the past 50 years have effectively not happened. We still have exactly the same education system as we had in the 1960s when the then Labour Government started to legislate to create comprehensives. We have grammar schools on the one hand and secondary moderns on the other. The county council can call the secondary moderns high schools and non-selective schools to its heart's content, but they are, in effect, secondary modern schools.
	The situation has improved slightly in recent years as the result of the creation of academies that are genuinely determined to create a comprehensive ethos. One or two schools have tried to do that, but we cannot create a genuine comprehensive school in a selective area. The two do not work together. The simple fact of the matter is that most parents in my constituency believe that the grammar schools are better than the secondary moderns. I take a different view. The grammar schools in my constituencythere are four of themare very good. I have no criticism of them as schools; I just do not believe that the children who attend them do as well as they would if they were to attend genuine comprehensive schools in a setting that can support their individual strengths and weaknesses and give them access to a wider curriculum. That is my personal view. I do not want to impose it on all the parents in my constituency. I genuinely believe that the Government are right to say that we should get rid of selection in a selective area only by holding a referendum; I just want to have the referendum.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who has tabled new clause 20, would I think arguehe will speak for himself in a moment if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speakerthat the simple fact of the matter is that we are not going to get referendums to abolish selection, so it should be abolished, full stop. He does not want to put me, for the first time in my political career, into the Lobby to vote against my Government. I certainly do not want to have to do that, and I hope not to have to support his new clause. The thing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can say to me that will stop me doing that is that he recognises the problems of selective areas, will look at the rules that govern whether an area such as Kent can have a referendum, and will ensure that they are fair and that it is practical to have them.
	The rules as they stand would require me and people like me who share my views to get together a petition of more than 44,000 people, because the rules say that it is necessary to get a proportion of the entire county, covering all the feeder schools and the secondary schools. That is not based on a catchment area around a single school, as it is in some parts of the country. We would need to get 44,000 signatures on a petition. Each entry would have to include the name of the person signing the petition, the name of the child, the school that the child attends, the relationship of the person signing the petition to that child, that person's name and address, and the name and address of the child. All of that information has to be obtained for every one of the 44,000 people and all of it has to be provided in a vacuum, because the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 prevent people from getting access to the names of all the people who are entitled to sign the petition.

Rob Marris: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but does he share mine? My understanding of the rules is that, apart from parents of pupils and prospective pupils, the taxpayers in the area who are funding the schools will not even be given a say. I consider that outrageous.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right: that is exactly the position. Constituents of mine may be sitting at home now planning to start families and, for that reason, worrying about the state of their local schools, but they will have no vote. Others with young children who are not yet old enough to attend one of the feeder schools, but who will certainly attend one in the next few years, will not be able to sign the petition. It is impossible to know which of the 2 million people who live in Kent will be entitled to sign it.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we need referendums to avoid selection, but he must give me a fair chance to go out and convince my constituents that they should sign a petitionand even after 44,000 signatures have been obtained, the referendum will still have to be organised. All I ask is for my right hon. Friend, if he does not want me to support new clause 18, to assure me that he will look at the rules and make it at least conceivable that referendums can be held in areas such as Kent, so that their schools can be brought within the family that will be created by new clause 14 and benefit from the excellent work that he has done in trying to improve admissions procedures.
	One issue that will remain in Kent if the 11-plus continues, either with or without a referendum, is the expression of preference. The county council and those who support grammar schools want pupils to make their choices when they know whether they have passed the 11-plus. That means that those who pass are given first choice of grammar school, while those who fail are given first choice of another school. It prevents the other schoolsacademies such as the wonderful Marlowe academy in Ramsgate, in which the Government have invested such huge amountsfrom creating a genuinely comprehensive ethos, because there is no way of ensuring that the parents and children who are given first choice of that school are genuinely committed to comprehensive education.
	Some of us do believe in comprehensive education. I did not put my children through the selective system because I do not believe in it, and there are other parents like me out there. I should have thought that we should be given preference when it comes to selecting schools that genuinely want to adopt a comprehensive structure, but we are given no such preference, because the county council wants to fiddle the selection procedure so that those who want to attend grammar schools are effectively given two first choices. New clause 14 will give the adjudicator power to stop that, and to make clear rules giving people an opportunity to build genuine comprehensive schools in my area.
	I fully support what the Government are doing. I merely ask them to show some sympathy in the framing of the rules for the ballot on selection, and to offer my constituents a reasonable prospect that they will be free to choose how they want education to develop in Kent at some point in the future.

Paul Holmes: I welcome the thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve in new clause 14. I have been a member of what was the Education and Skills Committee and is now the Select Committee on Children, Families and Schools for nearly all the past seven years, and I played a small part in the writing of the 2004 report on admissions, which has been mentioned a number of times. The report helped to prompt the Government to improve admission procedures, which they now intend to improve further to prevent them from being exploited for purposes of covert selection.
	Over the years, partly as a result of our current inquiry into diversity in schools, the Select Committee has received copious academic research evidence on the effects of overt and covert selection and the way in which it boosts some schools at the expense of the majority. I disagree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who seemed to suggest that we should ignore all evidence of the negative effects of selection of various kinds and pretend that it makes no real difference, because what matters above all else is the ethos of the school. There is, of course, the ethos of the sink school. The most famous, of which everyone has heard, is the Ridings school.
	Someone who knows Halifax extremely well is Alice Mahon, who was Member of Parliament for Halifax until she retired at the 2005 election. Writing in the  Yorkshire Post in March, she pointed out that Halifax had eight secondary schools: two grammars that cream off the top 20, 30, or 40 per cent. of the ability range, two faith schools that select in a different way, and four ordinary schools to take the rest of the pupils. For whatever reason, over the years the Ridings fell to the bottom of the pecking order. Its ethos was that of the sink school. I know that that is not a term that we are encouraged to use nowadays, although it was in common usage when I started teaching in 1979, but the fact that it is frowned on does not alter the fact that such schools exist. There are schools that lose out badly because of the effects of both covert and overt selection. We see that on a county-wide basis in places such as Kent and Lincolnshire, where the grammar school system still reigns.
	Although new clause 14 is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough, for two reasons. First, it leaves academies out of the equation. That is why I support new clause 18, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), and why I tabled amendments (a) to (n) thereto, along with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I simply cannot understand why academies should be free to use covert methods of selection, some of which the Secretary of State described a few weeks ago when he talked about the abuse of admissions procedures, while other schools in the state system are not.

Edward Balls: The reports from local authorities to the schools adjudicator will apply to all maintained schools, including academies, and all academies are required to comply fully with the admissions code. It is true that that is done through the foundation agreement rather than through statutea point that I am sure will be raised laterbut no academy is free from scrutiny or an obligation to comply. That will be part of the reporting process under new clause 14.

Paul Holmes: None the less, many people see a need to tighten up the system to make clear its absolute application to academies. I gave some examples earlier of the way in which they can play the system. I saw something similar in a free school in Stockholm, which is currently a favoured topic of conversation in some quarters. Although there is a ban on selective admission procedures in Sweden, those wishing to get into the school had to attend seven meetings with their parentsfive in the evenings and two lasting throughout two Saturdaysbefore they could even put their names down. Pregnant mothers already had their unborn children's names on the waiting list for a school with non-selective intake policies. Some academies in this country have similar admissions procedures.
	I have never been able to understand why academies should be outside the system, just as I have never understood why they should enjoy freedom from Government diktat on curriculums. Why cannot state schools and their heads have the same freedom? I should like to give all state schools the same freedoms as academies, while also imposing on all schools the restrictions on abuse of admissions procedures proposed in new clause 14.
	The other reason why new clause 14 does not go far enough is that it leaves out schools that select, directly and openly, on the basis of ability. That is why the hon. Member for Bury, North and I tabled new clauses 20, 21 and 22. Before anyone intervenes to ask, let me say that I am not speaking for the Liberal Democrats; my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil does that from the Front Bench, and those who have questions should address them to him. I am a mere Back Bencher, elected by my constituents to represent them, and I base my views on 22 years of working in three non-selective schools in the state system. I am also basing my views on having sent all three of my children to non-selective state schools in my neighbourhood in Chesterfield, as well as on having spent seven years on the Select Committee in both its incarnations, studying extensively the evidence in both this country and other countries.
	I thoughtI say this with my tongue slightly in my cheekthat there was cross-party agreement on the insidious effects of selection by ability. The current admission arrangements in which the 11-plus operates, to which the new clause applies, determine a child's future at age 11 on the basis of a couple of short, simple tests that are no longer relevant to today's needs. They distort the primary school curriculum. Those who can afford to do so pay for extra coaching. They constitute a high-stakes process that puts unacceptable pressure and anxiety on pupils, parents and teachers. The result is a system that leaves the majority of pupils being perceived, and perceiving themselves, as failures at the age of 11. Also, rather than providing a ladder out of disadvantage, there is significant bias against the less well-off in the test results, which is compounded later in public examinations.
	It is simply not right that a child's future should be determined at age 11, nor is it right to segregate children into two discrete groups at that age. [ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2006; Vol. 684, c. 544.]
	Before anyone asks, let me say that that is not me speaking; it is a direct quote from a Minister, Lord Rooker, on July 10 2006, when he introduced the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I am old enough to have been part of the 11-plus generation, and I saw what happened to families when one sibling passed and one sibling failed. That changed their lives for the whole of their lives. Their relationship became one of success and relative failure, and it should not be like that.

Paul Holmes: I agree absolutely. When Lord Rooker made that statement in the other place in introducing legislation to end grammar schools and the 11-plus in Northern Ireland, he went on to say:
	The Government are committed to ending academic selection in Northern Ireland and to a new system that involves parents choosing schools rather than schools selecting pupils.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2006; Vol. 684, c. 544.]
	I am at a loss to understand why that same principle should not apply in England, if it is good enough to apply in Northern Ireland, and that is the Government's view.
	A former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), told the Labour party's Manchester conference on 28 September 2006:
	We are reforming Northern Ireland's antiquated, unfair schools system which forced every child aged 11 to sit a test to determine their future; a test which opened a door to opportunities for a few, but closed those life chances off from too many. I've just taken through legislation to not only scrap the 11-plus but to abolish academic selection completely across Northern Ireland.
	I ask again, if that is good enough for Northern Irelandor any other party of the UKwhy is it not good enough for England? After all, that was a member of the same Government speaking. Another Labour Member said in a Commons debate on the same order that the Government were committed to ending selection, because they believe it disadvantages those individuals who are not selected. If the Government believe that in Northern Ireland, why do they not believe it in Englandin Kent, Lincolnshire and elsewhere?
	The Conservative party had a far-sighted shadow Education Secretary, who believed in an evidence-based research policy. He researched deeply into the subject and made an excellent speech last year based on that research. The speech was delivered to the CBI, and in it, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said:
	We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids.
	Not that I believe that it ever was. One of the seminal works on the topic, published in the 1950s, Education and the Working Class by Brian Jackson and Dennis Marsden, studied every child in Huddersfield in one year who was going to grammar school. They pinpointed on the map exactly which streets the children came from, and found that whole swathes of the poor areas of town sent almost nobody to grammar school. That belief was therefore revealed as a myth 50 years ago, and it was a central part of teaching when I was at university. I do not know why there is still this myth that selection is the ladder up for the poor.
	The hon. Member for Havant went on to say that the idea that selection transforms the life chances of bright, poor kids
	is a widespread belief but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it.
	He was so far-sighted, so visionary, so much based in the realities of research and policy-based evidence, that he got sacked and replaced.

Stephen Ladyman: I just want to refer the hon. Gentleman to the research to which I earlier referred a Conservative Front Bencher. Professor Jesson has compared the performance of cohorts going through the two distinct educational systems of selection and non-selection. He has clearly demonstrated that the brightest 2 or 3 per cent. do equally well in both systemsequally well, not better in the grammar school systembut that all the remaining children do on average one GCSE grade better in a comprehensive system than they do in a selective system, and that includes many of the very brightest.

Paul Holmes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That point can also be seen on an international scale. The PISAprogramme for international student assessmentstudies look at the OECD countries, which have comparable western-style economies. I think three studies in that sequence have been conducted now. All of them show that the more comprehensive the school system isas in Finland, which tops the league tables every timethe better the whole cohort of the school population does, whereas the more selective systems tend to sink down to the middle of the performance table, although the amount of money that is spent has to be allowed for, too. The PISA studies have specifically cited countries such as Germany, the UK and the USA, where there are wide variations of selection in the system, because while selection is undoubtedly good for the 10, 20 or 30 per cent. who are selected and taken into the elite schools, it has a very negative, downward effect on the vast majority of our pupils who are left out. I entered into politics to try to improve the life chances of everybody, not of a selected elite minority.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was one of thosethe chosen fewwho was selected in 1952. One of the things we noticed at the time was that class sizes in grammar schools were much smaller than in secondary modern schools, so we had even better chances.

Paul Holmes: That is a valid point, and one could make it again with reference to other areas. The Select Committee recently heard evidence from a former rear-admiral who now heads a group for public schools. He told us that what mattered is ethos. I said that Lord Adonis had said we should get the DNA of grammar schools and public schools and transfer it to the rest of the sector, and asked what was the DNA that was so good for this ethos. Was it the fact that those schools spent twice as much per pupil, that their class sizes were half that in the state system, that the teachers were paid more and had longer holidays, and that they selected only bright kids and they could get rid of any problem kid, or was it something else to do with the ethos? I think that question answers itself.
	As I have mentioned, I thought that the Government were absolutely committed to addressing selection as a result of what they said about it, and the action they have taken on it in Northern Ireland. The Conservatives certainly were committed to that, until their research-based and visionary spokesman was sacked for stating the obvious based on that research.
	I have to address my own party, too. My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), said on January 29 that
	if education is to deliver liberal social justice we must ensure that a minority of schools don't skim off the brightest pupils at will, leaving other schools to suffer the consequences of poorer attainment and weaker reputations. That's why we must end selection in academies, trust schools and foundation schools.
	I have to ask the same question, however: why does that sentence not conclude with the additional statement, and grammar schools, because they are clearly the biggest problem in terms of overt selection in this country? They are the elephant in the room that the Government and the Conservatives ignoreas do others.
	I thought there was cross-party agreement on this issue, but the key is how we push towards the final goal. Perhaps we should be happy. We know that politics is the art of the possible, and that we get incremental improvements. Under the previous Prime Minister, it was difficult to get this Government to admit that there was any problem on admissions. Things have been moving forward much more rapidly since the change of Prime Minister last year, so we can hope, and new clause 14 goes some way in the right direction. With amendments such as new clause 18 and the amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bury, North and myself, things would move a bit further, but the elephant in the room is the issue that new clauses 20, 21 and 22 addressthe outright, open, overt selection by ability that privileges a small elite in the grammar schools and penalises the large majority in the secondary moderns, which, whether they are called comprehensives, community schools or academies, are indeed secondary moderns in that situation.

David Chaytor: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) spoke powerfully on the issue of selective admissions policies, which is at the heart of some of the amendments that I have tabled in this group.
	I wish to speak specifically in support of new clause 14, the other Government proposals and my amendments to new clause 14amendments (a) to (n)which would strengthen it. Since he started in his post, the Secretary of State's record on tackling the difficult issue of school admission policies is exemplary. It was necessary to take a tough line with some schools that may have been abusing the system to ensure that the issue remained at the forefront of public concern. Every parent and head teacher in the country knows that for many years most schools have done their utmost to manipulate the existing admissions system to their advantage. I do not believe that most head teachers want to do that, and I certainly do not think that most parents want to have to lie, cheat and deceive to get their children into the school of their choice, but those are responses to the situation in which they find themselves. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the Secretary of State for taking the line that he did on this issue.
	The Secretary of State will also recall that the code of practice on school admissions was central to the debate on the Education and Inspections Bill in 2006. The House eventually agreed that if there was to be a freeing-up of the supply of schools and of the power of individual schools to run their own affairs, that had to be balanced by a tougher school admissions code of practice. One of the key issues was the legal responsibility of schools to comply with the code of practice. Under the old code, schools merely had to have regard to the code's requirements, but we were able to change that arrangement in the 2006 Bill and make it clear that schools had to comply with the code's requirements.
	However, there was always a question mark over the freedom of academies. I am completely in favour of schools having the capacity to innovate, and I support, and am enthusiastic about, the academy programme. If that programme is to continue to thrive, flourish and maintain public support, it must be based on a level playing field. Any hint or suggestion that academies receive special treatment on admissions policies must be dealt with; such is the purpose of my amendments (a) to (m), which would amend new clause 14. They would ensure that the provisions that apply to all maintained schools should also apply to academies, so that there is a level playing field on admissions.
	Amendment (n) is slightly different from those provisions, because it seeks to deal with the welcome new requirement in new clause 14 for local education authorities to report to the adjudicator. That requirement returns the role of LEAs to the position in which they should always have been, because they will have this important co-ordinating function on school admissions. The amendment picks up on the other important development in the 2006 Bill, which gave admissions forums the power to prepare a report to the schools commissioner. Interestingly, the Department's website contains guidance to admissions forums as to how they should prepare their annual report to the schools commissioner. The wording of the amendment would require the report to include
	the number and percentages of first, second and third preferences...the number of appeals...the ethnic and social mix...the extent to which existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of looked after children.
	All those requirements are now on the admissions forum. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that those criteria are also included in the report that must be made by the LEA to the schools adjudicator.
	I apologise if that is complex, but it is complex because two bodies are being required to make two separate reports. The admissions forum is required to make a report to the schools commissioner and the local authority must make one to the adjudicator. Perhaps, in time, those two separate reports should be merged into one, but if that is done, it is important that the criteria listed in the amendment relating to the ethnic and social mix of pupils attending schools, the number of appeals made and the number of first, second and third preferences are included in that report.
	I turn specifically to new clauses 19, 20, 21 and 22, because they deal with the issue of selection by ability. I do not want to go over the ground and the arguments that have been well covered by the hon. Member for Chesterfield and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I simply wish to say that the evidence on the effect of selection by ability at too early a stage in an education system has been well documented, not just this past year, the previous one or during the past decade, but for 50 years. The evidence from the United Kingdom and across the world shows that systems that select at too early a stage have the lower level of achievement overall and the biggest gap between higher achieving students and lower achieving students.
	There is no shortage of evidence on the matter, and last year, we almost reached the position of having all-party agreement in this House. Significantly, today's debate takes place almost 12 months to the day that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made his speech to the CBI, and I was delighted that the hon. Member for Chesterfield quoted that speech. I was intending to cite it again, despite the fact that I have read it into the record on at least one previous occasion in this House, because it was a most important speech.
	On 16 May 2007, we were on the edge of having all-party consensus and recognition of what the evidence from half a century's educational research in this country and in countries across the world said: that academic selection at too early a stage destroys the opportunities of large numbers of young people and holds back overall levels of achievement.

Kelvin Hopkins: I know that my hon. Friend will be aware of OECD statistics that suggest that the gap between the highest achievers and the lowest achievers in Britain is very large. That reinforces the social divisions that so bedevil our country and if we do not deal with that gap, we will continue to have the kind of frictions from which we have always suffered.

David Chaytor: That is right, and that point was finally recognised last year in the then shadow Secretary of State's speech. It was reiterated earlier this year in the Department's own research on the admissions system for 2006, which was conducted by Sheffield Hallam university. Reference has been made to that.
	The difficulty is that if we almost have consensus, how can we move forward? We have to work just a little bit harder on the current shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), his colleagues and the Conservative party, and we must test out some of their arguments and assumptions. Although he spent 25 minutes discussing an argument that took place four months ago and not addressing new clause 14, the hon. Gentleman did say something about the context in which he was approaching the Bill and the issue of fair school admissions. The difficulty is that in trying to extricate themselves from the policy that they almost had 12 months ago, the Conservatives are now posing a false antithesis. They are saying that the Government's desire to ensure fairer admissions within the available school places is somehow at odds with the desire to get more good school places. To get a thriving education system, we need both. We absolutely need fair admissions policies, but we need to continue the process of ensuring that every school is a good school.
	It is not good enough to say, The solution to the problem is nothing to do with fair admissions; it is all about getting more good school places. That raises the question, What is a good school place? Far too often, the official Opposition define a good school as one with a high proportion of highly able and motivated children. That is a completely distorted approach. The Opposition are locked into a circle of misconception that a good school is a school with a high proportion of such pupils. Therefore, not all schools can be good schools.
	It seems to me that one or two basic principles should underline the Government's approachany Government's approach.

Charles Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman define, in his own words, what he regards as a good school? What qualifies a school as a good school?

David Chaytor: I would be inclined to repeat some of the criteria that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to earlier, but, to give the briefest possible definition, I would say a school that maximised the potential of the greatest number of its children and did most for their well-being and long-term future. However, that is not central to the issue.
	We could all play around with our individual definitions, and I think we would all probably be in the same area in what defined a good school, but we must challenge the notion that a good school is one that happens to have a high proportion of able and motivated children. Conversely, we must challenge the notion that any school with a low percentage pass rate for those gaining five A to C grades at GCSE is necessarily failing. Too oftenprevious speakers emphasised this pointthe good school and the failing school are, in our most selective areas, located next door to one another.

Paul Holmes: I risk prolonging the debate on what is a good schoolthe hon. Gentleman's definition is admirablebut is not the Conservative party, since sacking the previous shadow Secretary of State, getting locked back into this loop of privilege: a good school is only a school with lots of high achieving, very able pupils? That is rather like the rear admiral representing the private sector who, in response to the hon. Gentleman during questioning at the Select Committee recently, said, Well, there are only so many excellent teachers and excellent pupils. The corollary was, And they are all in the private schools where people pay 28,000 a year to send their kids.

David Chaytor: I think that is right. Paradoxically, it is in the interests of the Opposition to drop this archaic prejudice about the structure of secondary education. If they are genuinely trying to reinvent themselves as a party that represents the majority of the population of the United Kingdom, they cannot afford to hang on to their hang ups.
	I have to admit that I struggle to work out the difference between shiny new compassionate conservatism and the old, nasty reactionary conservatism. Frankly, in the education policy that Conservative Members have espoused today, there is no difference.

John Hayes: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's lecture on modernity, but given what he has said so far, does he think that the Government have been wrong to concentrate on standards rather than structures over the last 10 years? That has certainly been their mission. Have they been wrong in that mission, because he seems rather preoccupied with structures?

David Chaytor: The Government, in 2006, explicitly accepted that they were turning their attention to structures. The issue is that anybody with any experience of the state education system would appreciate that standards and structures are closely related. We might argue about the extent and depth of the relationship, and its exact nature, but they are closely related.

Nigel Evans: I am extremely lucky. In Ribble Valley, I have one grammar school, which is excellent, and several non-grammar schools, which are excellent. They are all excellent schools. I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments and I assume from the passion with which he is speaking that he has spoken about this with his Front Benchers. I also assume that we will enjoy a Division at the end of the debate.

David Chaytor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I would rather continue with my argument for the moment.
	The issue this, what should be the underlying principle of a state secondary school system? Two points, above all, should be at the heart of that matter. There is now a consensus that we want parents to be able to choose schools, not schools to be able to choose parents. Unfortunately, the official Opposition have not worked through the logic of that statement, because they still support schoolswholly selective, partly selective, quasi-selectivechoosing pupils.
	My argument is, first, let us agree that we really want parents to be able to choose schools and, secondly, let us accept that the fact that children are intellectually differentiated does not mean that they have to be socially segregated. It is in the interests of all those children and in the national interest that we do not build barriers at too early an age between children who come from different social backgrounds and who have different intellectual capacities.
	If we can accept that we want to base the system on real, not phoney, parental choice and that it is in the national interest that children of all backgrounds are brought up together, we can move forward. That leads us inexorably to the point of view that selection by ability in secondary schools is not serving the national interest or the interests of the overwhelming majority of children.
	Moving quickly and specifically to the amendments, I shall not spend long on new clause 18. Although I am sympathetic to the argument on selection by aptitude, and although in 2004 and afterwards I spent time trying to get the Government to define aptitude, in one sense it is almost a distraction to focus entirely on aptitude. The new clause is also a contradiction in a way, but if the argument is that selection by aptitude should be abolished because aptitude is a proxy for ability, why does the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), not deal with the question of selection by ability? I see little point in dealing with the proxy rather than the substance. My proposal deals with both together.
	My second point on new clause 18 is that it does not do the job in that it will not amend legislation suitably and appropriately. It is a bit of gesture politics and it has served to raise the issue for debate, but it is not a serious proposal.
	My new clauses 19 to 22 offer a spectrum of ways to deal with the question of selection by ability. That spectrum goes from the easiest wayit would start the process of changein new clause 19 to the big bang solution in new clause 22. New clause 19 would turn on its head the assumption that has underpinned all school admission policies since the Education Act 1980since the days of Keith Joseph. For the last quarter of a century and more, the assumption that has driven all Government policy is that most parents want to avoid their local school. All Governments' admissions policies, all the incentives in the system and all the regulations have encouraged and made it easier for parents to send their children to other schools and move further away from their local school. We all know the background and context to that and we all know that a number of parentsnot a majority, but a significant minoritydo not wish, for whatever reason, their child to attend the local school.
	My argument is that there is an equally significant minority of parents who want their child to attend the nearest school, but they are not allowed in because that school is selectiveeither wholly or partially by ability, partially by aptitude, by faith or by a variety of quasi-selective devices. One of the easiest changes to the code of practice on school admissions and to primary legislation would be to guarantee that parents had an absolute right to send their child to the nearest school, whatever the designation of that school. We would be putting parental choice at the heart of the system and not allowing the specific admissions policies of an individual school to keep out children who live on its doorstep. That would have implications for wholly selective schools and for some of the partially selective schools, as well as for some faith schools. Howeverthis is again a response to the shadow Secretary of State's opening remarksall the major religious groups, as I understand it, are taking part in a lively debate about the balance between inclusive and exclusive admissions policies. In the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, many people at the most senior levels feel passionately that their faith schools should operate inclusive admissions policies rather than seek to keep children out. The debate will continue, and I hope that the Government will maintain a close dialogue with the major faith groups to encourage the adoption of more inclusive policies.
	New clause 19 is the ultimate inclusive policy and would allow a parent who lived near a selective school, which was their nearest school, to have the automatic right to send their child to that school.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and he has been a doughty campaigner on the issue for many years, for which I pay tribute to him. I am concerned that if new clause 19 was accepted and new clause 20 was not, we would find that, in constituencies such as mine, all the middle-class parents who live close to the middle-class schools could send their kids there while the working-class parents on the working class estates would essentially find themselves with no choice other than to send their child to the closest school, which was what used to be called a sink school.

David Chaytor: It is true that this system could have different effects in different parts of the country. However, the fact remains that in many of the selective local authorities in this countryquite apart from many of our leading quasi-selective schools and faith schoolssuch schools are located in areas of great deprivation. It is a national scandal that some of the poorest children living in the poorest neighbourhoods have to be bused out of those neighbourhoods because of the admissions policies of some of our most privileged schools. I fully understand the difficulties, and the system would operate differently in different parts of the country.
	New clause 20 takes on board the Government policy on selection, but gives it a slight twist. It maintains the ballot system and says nothing about the fairness of the ballot regulations, which we would condemn from the rooftops had they been invented by Robert Mugabe. The new clause accepts that the ballot should stay but requires the Government to change the default position of the ballot. Selection by ability and aptitude would be abolished, but the ballot procedure would stay so that parents could opt to reverse it if they chose to do so. In Thanet, for example, Government policy would abolish selection but if the good citizens of Thanet wanted to reverse that, they would have the opportunity to do so through a ballot.

Stephen Ladyman: That would presumably mean that they would have to collect 44,000 signatures in the arcane way that has been defined. My hon. Friend is on to something here.

David Chaytor: I will leave the exact number of signatures required and the exact rules of the ballot to the imagination, as there is no reference to them in new clause 20.
	New clause 21, moving along the spectrum, deals with the issue in a different way. Whereas in new clause 19 I tried to reverse the assumption that all parents want to avoid their local school by building in an assumption that many parents want their children to attend their nearest school, in new clause 21 I try to shift the focus of debate from the choice between selection and non-selection to the age at which selection takes place and the interface between selection and choice. New clause 21 reiterates the case that selection by ability is completely unacceptable, for the reasons outlined earlier, but says that there comes a point in the education system at which children have to choose which curriculum they will follow.
	Few people in the House would challenge the notion that selection takes place when people enter a universitythere clearly has to be a selective process for a degree course. Many people would accept that there needs to be a form of selection at the age of 16, as people move on to level 3 education. An absolutely fascinating question concerns the implication of the emergence of the 14 to 19 curriculum and the development of diplomas for selection by ability. Another fascinating question concerns the role of an institution in choosing which pupils should be admitted to a diploma programme and the role of an individual pupil, with the support and advice of their teacher and their parent, in deciding which programme they want to progress to.
	New clause 21 reiterates the inappropriateness of selection by ability at the age of 11, but accepts that at a certain stage of a young person's progress through the system some selection takes place. It emphasises that it is far better if children and young people can choose the curriculum that they want to follow, on the advice of their teachers and parents, rather than having an arbitrary institutional decision made to keep them out of an educational establishment.
	Finally, new clause 22 is the big bang solution. It asks why on earth the Government do not just get on with it and legislate against selection by ability at the age of 11, as Harold Wilson did 42 years ago.

Edward Balls: We have had a wide-ranging debate on a number of issues to do with admissions. A great deal of passion, as well as experience and knowledge, was displayed by Members from all parties. I want to try to address a number of points that were made by going through the individual amendments and clauses. I shall try to do so as fast as possible to see whether we can progress to the next group of amendments before we have to move on.
	I shall turn to the issue of principle about new clause 14 at the end, but I started by saying that we wanted consensus on the importance of fair admissions, and on the importance of providing opportunity and excellence for all through such fair admissions. It seemed that there was consensus in favour of taking forward the recommendations in the Select Committee's report and of ensuring that the admissions code was properly implemented and strengthened. That consensus stretched across both sides of the House, but seemed to exclude the Opposition Front Benchers.
	I shall come back to the issue of faith schools when I talk about the individual amendments, but my impression was that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was saying that he was in favour of an admissions code in principle, but not a code that is implemented, that has any substance and that backs parents who want a fair chance to get their children into schoolsor at least not if the code ends up being contrary to the views of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) called the proprietor and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to as the individual governors. It was most revealing that at no point did the hon. Gentleman refer to parents or to the parents and children who do not get into a school because they choose not to apply, having been deterred by the way admissions policies were set. That was very revealing.
	I shall come back to new clause 14, but first I shall talk about some of the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) referred to amendments (a) to (n) to new clause 14. They both argued in different ways that we should not have a special set of arrangements on admissions for academies that exclude them or let them off the hook when it comes to fair admissions. My answer to that is that we have different legal arrangements for academies, but not special arrangements. We do not intend to allow any form of selection for academies, by either the front or back door, that goes outside the admissions code.
	It is true that we do not legislate for academies in the same way that we legislate for maintained schools. The obligations placed on academies are contained in their funding agreements, rather than directly in primary legislation. However, I assure hon. Members again that the funding agreements for all academies require their admissions arrangements to be in accordance with admissions law. The provisions of the school admissions code apply to academies just as they do to maintained schools.
	The study that we conducted in three local authority areas was both revealing and interesting, in that it showed that all admissions to the academies in those areas were fully compliant with the admissions code. The academies know clearly what their admissions policies need to be. After discussions with the Department, they have made sure that they have fair admissions, in compliance with the code.

Paul Holmes: The evidence that the Select Committee has looked atfor example that from PricewaterhouseCoopers, which did research for the Government, and from Professor Stephen Gorardshowed that the longer academies are open, the fewer children with free school meals or special educational needs they take; moreover, the prior educational attainment of ESN pupils rises, and four times as many kids are expelled. Does the Secretary of State agree that the picture is not quite as rosy as the one he is painting?

Edward Balls: The hon. Gentleman is pointing to the fact that with academies, we are trying to achieve truly comprehensive admissions. We talked about the Mossbourne academy earlier, and it is true that many try to do that through a banded admissions system. However, whatever method is used, the aim is truly comprehensive admissions in academies. One would expect there to be some change over time, but academies are still disproportionately to be found in areas where family incomes are below average, and more children in the intake get free school meals than the catchment area would suggest.
	The evidence shows that the academies represent a progressive policy that is delivering educational opportunity for children in disadvantaged areas and from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is a good example of fair admissions in practice. That is why the amendments, which would change the legal basis of the Government's relationship with academies but nothing at all in respect of their admissions policy, are neither necessary nor desirable.

David Chaytor: rose

Paul Holmes: rose

Edward Balls: I give way to the hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Paul Holmes: I said earlier that it was too early to make a judgment about academies, as they are still fairly new. However, city technology colleges are academies under another name; they have been around a long time and they certainly support the evidence about increasing selection. Professor Gorard told the Select Committee about one academy that was founded in 2002one of the first. More than 50 per cent. of students were on free school meals, and that was clearly way over the level from the area that it should have had, but that proportion has fallen to 12 per cent., which is way under.

Edward Balls: I and my Department are determined to keep the evidence on academies under review, to make sure that they are delivering the purpose for which they have been set upthat is, as I said earlier, educational excellence in areas that previously had too often been denied it. However, CTCs were the policy of the previous Conservative Government, not this one. They were not driven by the aim of extending opportunity into disadvantaged communities, and the evidence about them is as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I feel no need to defend CTCs, but I am happy to defend academies.
	I turn now to amendments (m) and (n). New clause 14 makes it clear that we want to require local authorities to make public reports on each school to the schools adjudicator. We believe that having that information in public, for people to see, is the right way to ensure compliance with the admissions code.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North noted, school admissions forums can choose to have an annual report, and in our consultation on the regulations that follow from the new clause we will look very carefully at the content, form and timing of those reports and at their relationship to school admissions forums. We will consult on that in the summer, and we will also consult in detail on what the content of the reports should be. I do not think that it is right, as amendment (n) proposes, to specify that in primary legislation, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be a full and detailed consultation on what should be in the reports to the schools adjudicator. By the time those reports are complied, we will have had experience with local authorities around the country that have been asked to provide reports to the schools adjudicator for this year, in advance of the regulations. On the basis of that evidence, we will be able to see what we need to do in the regulations for next year. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw amendments (m) and (n).
	I deal now with new clauses 18, 20, 21 and 22. Earlier we had an important and lengthy debate about grammar schools. I understand that there are strong views on both sides of the argument about grammar schools among MPs who represent Kent and the other parts of the country where selection still operates. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) has a long-standing commitment to his argument, and a very great deal of knowledge, so I listened very carefully to what he, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield, had to say.
	Just a couple of weeks ago, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), who is Minister for the South East, visited three secondary modern or non-grammar schools in Kent. We saw how they were using the Building Schools for the Future programme to deliver a culture of rising standards of aspiration and excellence.

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely agree that many of the schools that I refer to as secondary moderns in Kent are absolutely excellent, and I said as much in my contribution. My right hon. Friend is making available to Kent 3 billion through the Building Schools for the Future programmethe most magnificent opportunity to rebuild the county's secondary education that we will see in our lifetimes. However, Kent county council is being allowed to spend the money on locking selection into the structure. Does he not think that that is a bit odd?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right to point to the great educational opportunity that arises from the huge Building Schools for the Future investment. I am sure that he is aware of Opposition proposals to cut 4.5 billion in provision for constituencies across the country, although we do not yet know which of the six new schools in Crewe and Nantwich would be lost if those proposals were allowed to be taken forward. However, I agree it is important that we ensure that we get the best educational value from that money and investment.
	We on this side of the House are clear that we oppose selection by ability. The Government have put in place provisions to ensure that banding or selection for school sixth forms are the only conditions under which selection by ability should ever occur. That is clearly consistent with the schools admissions code, and we are committed to ensuring that all maintained schools comply with that code.
	We are clear that there will be no new academic selection. We reaffirmed that ban in the Education and Inspections Act 2006, but we have said consistently that, where grammar schools exist, it is right for parents to decide whether selection should continue in a particular grammar school, and we have put in place mechanisms for assessment.
	I know that some people around the country believe that, where selection applies across a whole county, the hurdles that have to be surmounted before a ballot can be held are substantial. However, parents still have the ability in law to vote to end grammar schools, if they choose to, on the basis of a petition. Last year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners investigated these issues carefully and concluded that this was not the right time to change the ballot process. He put the file back into the bottom drawer of his filing cabinet, but he is committed to keeping the system under review. He will remove the file from the cabinet on a regular basis to make sure that it is still there.

Paul Holmes: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will answer the question that I posed earlier. If Ministers such as Lord Rooker and the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) can speak so eloquently and passionately about the need to remove the pernicious evils of selection and the grammar school system in Northern Ireland, why is the same not true of England?

Edward Balls: The Government's position is clear: we do not support selection in schools, but where such selection exists it should be for local areas to decide whether to remove it. We do not support new grammar schools, and in fact that is prescribed in law. We have clear procedures. My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners considered the issues, but there was not consensus and he did not think that there was a need to change the arrangements. I understand that some Members are unhappy about that, but that is the position that he reached, and that is our position.

Paul Holmes: rose

Edward Balls: I have taken a number of interventions; I had better make a bit more progress. We cannot support the new clauses that would change the balloting process, and we do not think that it is the right time to put them to a vote.
	On new clause 19, we ensure fair admissions in a range of waysby taking into account proximity, banding or a combination of the two. It would not be right to put into legislation a guarantee that admissions will always be based on proximity. That would not be the way to allow parents to express a preference. A school will not always have the capacity to accept all those who apply to it because it is the nearest school, and in rural areas in particular, the proposals in the new clause may not be the right way to go. We do not think that the clause is the right way for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North to achieve his objectives.
	New clause 18 raises an interesting set of issues. I do not think it is right to equate selection by aptitude with selection by ability. As I have made clear, we do not want to extend selection by ability at all. Children may have an aptitude for a particular subject; that is, they may be able to demonstrate a particular capacity to succeed in a subject, or demonstrate that they will benefit from being taught it. That is something that many schools with a specialism value, and that approach is supported by many parents and schools. As hon. Members know, we made changes in recent years because there were a couple of areas where we were concerned that there might be selection by ability through the specialism route. We took action with regard to information and communications technology and design technology.

David Laws: rose

Edward Balls: I will finish my point first, and then I will take the intervention.
	I have seen the research that we commissioned from Sheffield Hallam university. I understand very well the view of the researchers, who believe that selection on the grounds of aptitude is likely to be socially selective by default. I take that issue very seriously, and we in government have looked at that issue. I remind hon. Members that the Sheffield Hallam research was conducted before the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and the subsequent introduction of the admissions code. The code banned interviewing as part of the admissions process. That step occurred after the Sheffield Hallam research was done.
	We should agree that in the light of the Sheffield Hallam research, and in the light of experience with the admissions code, we will keep the issue under review. If it was our view that the researchers were right, and selection by ability was creeping in through the back door, we would take that very seriously, as would the schools adjudicators. However, we think that the admissions code is the right way to take the issue forward for now, although we are happy to keep the position under review.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those comments, and I can understand why the issue of selection by ability is in the Schools Minister's bottom drawer, but we are talking about a different question; we are talking about new selection coming into the system. Selection by aptitude is still in place for foreign languages, for example. Will the Secretary of State keep that under review in an active way and commission new research on it, rather than keep it under review in the same way that the other issue, which has been buried in the bottom drawer, is being kept under review?

Edward Balls: As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman has commended us on our evidence-based research. We will ensure that we have evidence, and we will keep looking at the evidence to see whether, as a result of the admissions code, a problem that some people feared would arise has developed. That is a better way forward than legislating now to drop something that has not been proven to be a problem, and which is popular with schools and parents alike.

David Chaytor: Before we leave that point, will the Secretary of State define the distinction between aptitude and ability? To put it another way, does he think that Ronaldo has an ability to score goals, or merely an aptitude?

Edward Balls: If a sports college has the power to choose only 10 per cent. of its pupils on the basis of whether they have a particular reason to benefit from its sports offer and its facilities, that is fine. If it turns out that the college is using sports aptitude as a way of finding out whether people can get a certain grade in GCSE maths, or in modern languages, or were using aptitude as a proxy for income, that would be wrong. We are very clear that if a school has a specialism in something other than ICT or design technologyas we have said, it could be in maths, sports or modern languageschoosing 10 per cent. of pupils on the basis of aptitude for that subject is fine, so long as aptitude does not become a proxy for wider academic ability or social selection. If the evidence shows that it is indeed being used as a proxy, we will act, but we would need to see the evidence.

David Laws: rose

Edward Balls: I will take one more intervention, and then I will conclude.

David Laws: What is the difference between modern languages, for which the Secretary of State does allow selection by aptitude, and ICT, in respect of which new selection has been banned, although where there is existing selection in schools the practice has been grandfathered?

Edward Balls: It is generally agreed that we need to do more to expand the teaching of, and the number of pupils taking exams in, modern languages in secondary and primary schools. In my constituency, there is a school that has a new modern languages speciality. It is doing well, but to establish a base of expertise and to bring teachers in, it is looking to bring in pupils who have an aptitude for modern languages. That seems to be a perfectly appropriate way for the school to strengthen its experience in that area, and to share that experience with other schools.

Michael Gove: Will the Secretary of State explain for the benefit of the House what the difference is between an intellectual facility with French, which he classifies as an aptitude, and an intellectual ability with, say, the English language or mathematics, which he describes as ability? What is the philosophical or pedagogical difference? I am sure that we would all benefit from hearing that.

Edward Balls: Not having read the Policy Exchange report that advocated the abolition of selecting 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude, I am not sure that I can answer that question in a way that the hon. Gentleman would find acceptable. It is clear that when it comes to supporting the specialist schools movement and giving parents what they want, selecting 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude is a powerful way of encouraging the ethoshe may like that wordof those schools. However, that must not happen in a way that allows widespread selection for a range of academic subjects through the back door, or selection by ability.

Charles Walker: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Edward Balls: I will give way one more time, and then I will conclude.

Charles Walker: Why was the figure of 10 per cent. alighted on? Why is it not 5, 15 or 20 per cent.?

Edward Balls: The 10 per cent. figure has been there since the beginning of the specialist schools movement, which preceded the Government coming to power in 1997, so the hon. Gentleman may have to ask Conservative Members why 10 per cent. was originally chosen. We think that 10 per cent. allows a school to choose a minoritya tenthof their pupils on the basis of aptitude, without aptitude becoming a proxy for academic ability. As I say, we will keep the Sheffield Hallam research under review. If Policy Exchange is right to say that the policy is a covert, back-door means of allowing selection, it would be right to take action.
	Let me turn to new clause 14, admissions and the work that our Department has done in recent months. At the beginning of the debate, I said that we should move forward by consensus and should try not to allow the issue to become a political football. I said that because Government Members and people in my Department have not played politics with the issue. In my view, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has consistently played politics with it from the very beginning. He made that clear in his rather lengthy speech.
	I want to explain where I stand on these issues. When I became Secretary of State, I inherited a document called Faith in the System, which we published in September. It sets out clearly my support and the Government's support for faith schools and the role that they play in our education system. Many of them were playing that role before the state provided free education, and many of those had a mission to tackle disadvantage in our education system.
	At that time I saidI have been consistent on thisthat it is important that our faith schools demonstrate that they are promoting community cohesion and fair admissions through the admissions code. In the conversations that I have had with faith organisations and faith leaders, they are clear in their support for that.
	Of course, in the first year there were some issues to sort out, and I am happy to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that in the discussions we have been having with the Board of Deputies, we have been able to clarify under the code that the faith organisations' use of marriage certificates as a way of confirming religious activity is fine. The important thing is that it should be done not by the individual school but by the faith organisations. On that issue, I think we can make progress.
	Consistently through this period we have been in discussion with the faith organisations. Let me provide a couple of quotes from the different faith organisations that we have worked withthe hon. Gentleman read out a number of quotes earlier. Mr. Henry Grunwald QC, of the Board of Deputies, said on 10 April:
	Throughout, the Board of Deputies has worked closely with the DCSF to ensure that the concerns of the community are understood by the Department, and that Jewish schools understand the requirements of the Admissions Code. It is clear from my conversations with Ed Balls, and our exchange of correspondence, that he is supportive of our schools
	as I am, and as I set out in the  Jewish Chronicle.
	The Board of Deputies agrees with me that it is important that Jewish schools comply with the admissions code, and they will do so in future. We are working with them to do so. This is not a witch hunt. The Board of Deputies is working with us to ensure that those schools, which have every right to voluntary contributions, are compliant.
	I shall also quote the Bishop of Dover, Stephen Venner, who told BBC Radio 4's World at One:
	Ed Balls used the word 'horrified' in his statement, and I think I would repeat that. We are entirely behind the Government in what they have discovered and in the actions they are taking to try to deal with it. We have said all along we will work with Government and local authorities to ensure that appropriate admissions criteria are in place and that they are followed.
	Similar statements were made by the Catholic Education Service.
	We will work with the faith organisations to deliver community cohesion. We will work with the religious authorities and individual schools to ensure community cohesion, fair admissions and compliance with the code. That is the best way to ensure that parents and those schools have wider support. We continue to support the role of faith schools in our system. I therefore make no apology at all for the fact that when we discovered substantial non-compliance, we published the information so that schools, governors and parents could see that we needed to act to improve the situation. That is what we shall do.

Michael Gove: If the Secretary of State was working so closely with faith organisations, why did the diocesan officer for education for the London diocese express such profound disappointment and consternation at the way in which the Secretary of State handled the matter, and why were four schools slandered inappropriately for their treatment of looked-after children?

Edward Balls: I absolutely reject the idea that I have slandered any school. We published in a factual way details of schools that were not compliant with the law and the admissions code. When I had that information, it would have been quite wrong for me to conceal it from governors or parents. I published the information with the support of faith leaders so that we could ensure compliance with the code in the future.
	It is revealing that the hon. Gentleman is not supporting our action to ensure compliance with the code. He is not supporting our proposals to strengthen the admissions code. The conclusion that I reach is that he does not support fair admissions. The inevitable conclusion is that while our party drives forward excellence for all in our education system, he and his colleagues continue to support excellence for the fewthe preservation of excellence for some, not the promotion of excellence for all. That is why he is opposed to the admissions code, to diplomas, to the Bill and to education to 18 for all. The hon. Gentleman supports a two-tier education policy and excellence for some. With us, it is excellence for all. That is the dividing line.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	  
	Abolition of appeals against permanent exclusion of pupils

'(1) The Education (Pupil Exclusions and Appeals) (Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2002 are amended as follows.
	(2) Omit regulation 6 and the Schedule to the Regulations.'. [Mr. Gibb.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2 Home-school contracts
	'(1) An admission authority may make it a condition of a child's admission to a school that the parent of a child agrees to secure compliance with any school rules made by the head teacher and governors of that school.
	(2) In this section admission authority has the same meaning as in section 88 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.'.

Nick Gibb: New clauses 1 and 2 deal with behaviour. Poor behaviour, disruptive behaviour and even violent behaviour in our schools has become one of the main problems facing our education system. Tackling poor behaviour lies at the centre of the Conservatives' education policy and our determination to raise standards and the quality of our schools.
	According to Home Office figures, a quarter of young people aged 10 to 25 said that they had committed a crime in the previous year. In 2006, 94,000 custodial sentences were handed down to 10 to 17-year-olds, and there were more than 250,000 persistent truants. Two thirds of teachers had been verbally or physically assaulted in the previous year of the survey, and nearly one in 10 had been threatened with a weapon. In March this year the Association of Teachers and Lecturers published a survey showing that 29 per cent. of all teachers had been punched, kicked or bitten by their pupils. No one should therefore be in any doubt about the extent of the problem or its seriousness.
	When I visit schools I am continually told by head teachers that one of the main hurdles that they face is the difficulty in expelling persistently disruptive pupils. No head whom I have met wants to expel pupils from their school, but when every avenue has been explored to try to change the behaviour of a disruptive child, heads need to be able to apply the ultimate deterrent of expulsion. However, when children know that expulsion is rarely an option, the credibility of the head in his attempts to instil good behaviour is severely undermined.
	The particular difficulty that heads mention is the nightmare that they have to go through if a parent appeals to the independent appeals panel administered by the local authority against their child's expulsion. Those appeals are stressful and distracting for the head and they can be time consuming and expensive for the school.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, respond to the statement issued by the special education consortium, which said in its briefing in response to his new clause that
	independent exclusion appeal panels remain an important safeguard to allow further consideration of whether exclusion is an appropriate response in each individual case?

Nick Gibb: I understand that concern, but there will be a safeguard under our new clause. The safeguard will be the appeal to the governing body. A section of the governing body that is not involved in the original expulsion will hear the appeal. That should deal with the concern.
	The effect of appeal panels on schools is clear. Since 1997 permanent exclusions have fallen from 12,700 to 9,300. In that period suspensions have risen from 290,000 to 340,000. That is a matter of concern to Chris Keates, the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, who points out that when a child is expelled for hitting a teacher or for verbal abuse and goes through the appeals panel, they come back. A quarter of all appeals are won by parents. In half of the appeals that are won, the pupil returns to the school.
	I urge the Government to consider carefully new clause 1 and new clause 2, which makes home-school contracts a condition of admission to a school, which is currently forbidden.

Kevin Brennan: I shall be very brief, given the time available. I ask my hon. Friends to resist the new clauses. There are two reasons to reject them in respect of school appeals panels on exclusions. I mentioned one in my intervention: the panels are an important safeguard for pupils with special educational needs. Conservative Front Benchers often ask us to do as much as we can to protect such pupils' interests.
	Secondly, abolishing the panels would result in more and more cases in court. That would only line the pockets of the lawyers and take more time. The proposal is opposed by the Association of School and College Leaders. Head teachers are not in agreement with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and the other Conservative Front Benchers.
	Home-school contracts would be yet another way

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  proceeded to  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]

New Clause 18
	  
	Selection by aptitude

'(1) No new or existing maintained school shall select pupils by aptitude.
	(2) For the purposes of this section, maintained school includes all Academies, Specialist, Trust or Foundation Schools.'. [Mr. Laws.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 359.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	  
	Persons to whom Part 1 applies

Nia Griffith: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 1, line 7, after 'England', insert 'and Wales'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 113 to 118.

Nia Griffith: In proposing the amendment, I very much applaud the excellent work of Jane Hutt, the Assembly Minister for Education, Culture and Young People, and her colleagues in innovatively and imaginatively developing the 14 to 19 curriculum in Wales.
	I fully respect the power and responsibility that the Assembly has with regard to education, but my reason for proposing the amendment is quite simply to ensure that if the Welsh Assembly Government see the need to make the entitlement to education or training up until the age of 18 compulsory in future, they have the facility to do so without the need for primary legislation from the UK Government.
	Many excellent programmes in Wales to encourage young people to continue their education or training up until the age of 18 are being delivered largely through schools and colleges. The response of the National Training Federation for Wales to Skills That Work for Wales states that the Welsh Assembly should include 16 to 19-year-olds at work in the learning entitlement measure and should seriously consider taking reserve powers to introduce, if necessary, an obligation to learn along the lines of the English Bill. It says that such a reserve power could be useful in underpinning entitlement by prompting employers and young employees alike to engage voluntarily in and complete an appropriate qualification process. In the view of the NTFW, that would also encourage the completion of apprenticeships because non-completions have long been identified as a problem within the apprenticeship process.
	We all appreciate that, as far as we possibly can, we need to motivate young people to take up education and training opportunities up to the age of 18 of their own volition, but without repeating the many good reasons why the Bill will make that entitlement compulsory, I should like to highlight a couple of issues. First, one of the reasons for making entitlement up to the age of 18 compulsory is that authorities, particularly in difficult times, have to concentrate their resources on statutory provision. If a service is not statutory, it can be in danger of being starved of funding and under-resourced. Secondly, once the measures in the Bill come into force, making entitlement up to the age of 18 compulsory in England, there may be cross-border issues and unintended consequences that make compulsion desirable in Wales. I propose the amendment in order to ensure that that option will be open to the Welsh Assembly Government.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I rise to address amendment No. 149 and the Government amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) raised some important points about education in Wales that will have been heard, and which will be heard after the debate as well. If I may address the crux of the matter in amendment No. 149, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the Welsh Assembly Government should be able to decide to raise the participation age in Wales at some point in the future.
	The intention behind the amendment is laudable. It seeks to ensure that young people in England and Wales, who are above compulsory school age, under 18 and without a level 3 qualification, receive the undoubted benefits of education and training. That is a virtuous circle: as the young people receive the benefits of additional education and training, their communities, families and wider society also benefit. It is a classic win-win scenario. We want those benefits to accrue in England and Wales, to our constituents in Llanelli, Ogmore and elsewhere. Yet I hope that I can explain to my hon. Friend and the House that the amendment, while rightly probing the intentions of the Welsh Assembly Government and Westminster, is unnecessary.
	It may help if I put the amendment in context. The Welsh Assembly Government are fully committed to ensuring that as many young people as possible stay on in education or training until the age of 18. We have a shared aim of equipping more and more young people in the 14 to 19 range with the skills and abilities that they need to shape a successful future.
	The Welsh Assembly Government are putting in place their strategies to achieve that, focused on two key objectives to encourage participation. The first is extending the entitlement of young people to education and training generally, and the second is expanding the range of options available to them, through programmes such as 14 to 19 learning pathways and the Welsh baccalaureatethe Welsh bac.
	The Assembly Government have a long-standing endorsement of an approach that increases the obligation on providers of services to expand and improve the offers made to young people, and to make staying in education and training more attractive and worth while. They recently concluded a consultation exercise on a draft learning and skills measure, through which they intend to legislate to provide young people with a statutory entitlement to education and training during that period in their lives.
	I know that the Assembly Government are keen to work with us, sharing and learning from our different experiences as they plan their policies for the future. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners set out in Committee, we do not believe that those matters should be reduced to either/or. Improving the range and quality of the offer to young people is essential, and raising the participation age can galvanise the system to do that.
	The Government of Wales Act 2006 allows the Assembly to acquire enhanced legislative powers through legislative competence ordersLCOs. If, based on the English experience, the Welsh Assembly Government decide to pursue the approach taken in England, they have the option of proposing a legislative competence order to seek powers to enable them to raise the participation age.
	In the meantime, we are working with the Assembly Government to ensure that the Bill is drafted in such a way that it enables all aspects of the policy to be capable of application in Wales in future, should they decide to pursue such an approach. However, if the amendment were accepted, it would apply the duty to participate and the rest of the provisions of part 1 in exactly the same form to Wales as to England. It would not allow flexibility to reflect different structures, provisions or qualifications in Wales. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it, with the clear commitment of the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to continue to work with the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that the approach in England could be adopted if required and requested, and in the light of our shared aim of equipping young people with the skills and abilities for a successful future.
	I hope that I will not detain us long on Government amendments Nos. 113 to 118. The Bill contains framework powers for the National Assembly for Wales to legislate on regulation and inspection. The amendments would alter those powers so that they more comprehensively cover the regulation of the independent sector. That would avoid the position whereby Westminster regulates some parts of the sector and the Government in Wales regulate others.
	Clause 133 enables the National Assembly for Wales to legislate on the arrangements for the registration and regulation of independent schools in the context of educational provision and, more generally, of pupil welfare. The framework provision also confers power on the Assembly to introduce measures on the inspection of maintained schools for children of or below compulsory school age, and other education and training for those aged 16 and under, as well as the inspection of independent schools and education and training provided other than in a school to those of compulsory school age.
	The amendments would extend the framework power to enable the National Assembly to regulate independent nursery schools and part-time educational training provided at independent educational institutions, which provide education for one or more pupils of compulsory school age. That will ensure that the power is comprehensive in giving the Assembly the ability to legislate on regulation in the independent sector.
	I ask hon. Members to support the Government amendments.

John Hayes: It is indicative of my support for the Union that, although I represent an east of England constituency, I spend a disproportionate amount of time debating Welsh matters. I do so again with great pleasure.
	The amendment would extend part 1the duty to participate until the age of 18to Wales, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) argued. I take it from the tone of her contribution and the Under-Secretary's response that it is a probing amendment, which is designed to tease out the Welsh Assembly's perspective on the subject. Hon. Members will know that some provisions apply to Wales, although the Bill's main purposeto raise the age of compulsory participationdoes not.
	According to a written statement by Jane Hutt, the Assembly Minister for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills, to the Assembly, the provisions for inspection of education and training for those aged 16 and under; regulation, registration and inspection of independent schools in Wales; school forums; data sharing; and changes to the remit of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority apply in Wales.
	Conservative Members believe that the Assembly should decide whether the age of compulsory participation should be raised in Wales. However, the current legislation, with some provisions applying in Wales and others not, could give rise to a lack of clarity. I guess that is why the hon. Lady tabled the amendment.
	I do not want to embarrass the Government unduly or unnecessarily. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not my habit. However, as we found when we debated the Bill that became the Further Education and Training Act 2007 in the previous Session, such lack of clarity can have constitutional implications. As the Under-Secretary will remember, the Act enables the Privy Council to grant powers to award foundation degrees to further education colleges in England, but the measure did not extend to Wales. The Government's position was that the Welsh Assembly should decide whether the powers should apply in Wales. However, it became clear as the measure was scrutinised in Committee that such powers would not be devolved to the Assembly and that no proper discussion about that had taken place.
	I am pleased that the Government appear to have moved on and got it right in the Bill that we are considering. I appreciate that the balance of power between the Assembly and the House is a developing understanding on the part of the Government and the Opposition, but the useful tabling of the amendment gives us a chance to reconsider those matters. It is worth repeating that, for the Welsh Affairs Committee, Conservative Members and, I guess, some Labour Members, the preferred method of dealing with those matters is through Orders in Council rather than through encouraging the inclusion of provisions in primary legislation. After all, that principle lies behind devolution. It would be useful if the Under-Secretary could say something specific about that. He responded to the hon. Lady in the terms that I expected, but it would be useful to have absolute clarity about the different ways in which to legislate for Wales on education and other matters and perhaps an assurancenow is as good a time as any to offer itthat the Government will proceed by the preferred method in future with regard to the Bill and other measures.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by clarifying that, within the Wales Office and the Welsh Assembly Government, we do not see the need to preclude either option. However, as he is aware, for the first time ever, Orders in Council give the ability to bring forward National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Assembly Government-inspired legislation, which is a good way to bring things forward. However, framework powers will still be brought forward on occasion. They will be debated in the House, as they are now. We would not want to rule out either option, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a good new method, under the Government of Wales Act 2006, which we fully support.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I presume that the reasoning behind the unwillingness to take an either/or route is that on some occasions the Government would deem it appropriate and desirable to have a broader debate about a subject. That was the argument used last time around. However, I am mindful that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs said:
	We are concerned that continuing to use primary legislation to extend the powers of the National Assembly (in a parallel procedure to adding Matters by way of Legislative Competence Orders) will mean that Matters introduced in this way will escape the detailed arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The other point that the Minister might want to intervene to clarify is that pre-legislative scrutiny will form a key part of future legislation and has formed a key part of this legislation.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose

John Hayes: The Minister is gagging to intervene once again. I am delighted to give way accordingly.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Again, it is convenient to clarify the position. We indeed see Welsh aspects being subject to pre-legislative scrutiny when framework powers are brought forward under the new Public Bill Committee format, which is to be welcomed.

John Hayes: I am again grateful to the Minister. Mindful that we have many other matters to debate in the short time available and not wishing to test the House's patience beyond reasonable limitsor, indeed, yours, Madam Deputy SpeakerI draw my remarks to a close by saying merely that the Government have learnt their lesson and are improving, in respect of the application of their measures in the Principality of Wales.

Hywel Williams: Further to the point that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made, I, too, will keep my remarks brief. However, there is good reason to consider education and amendment No. 149 in detail.
	Education is a devolved matter and has been so for a long time, if to varying degrees. Wales has a long educational tradition that is both radical and different from that in England. I am glad to have this opportunity to mention Griffith Jones Llanddowror and Robert Jones Rhoslan, who in the 18th century ensured that 158,000 Welsh people were literate, long before such a position obtained in England. Then we had the Welsh Intermediate Education Act 1889, which provided that public money should be spent on Welsh intermediate educationthat education should be paid for from the rates, again long before that was the case in England.
	In recent decades we have seen other specifically Welsh developments, including the continuing success of Welsh medium education, the provisions on language of the Education Reform Act 1988, which the Conservatives introduced, the deletion of burdensome SATs, the Welsh baccalaureate and now the foundation stage for early education. Furthermore, as has been mentioned, field 5 of schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006, on education and training, sets out 17 separate mattersmore matters than any other field. They range from matter 1, the categories of schools to be maintained, to matter 17, education and training for those with learning and other difficulties. Clearly the Assembly has been judged to be competent in educationall the more reason, therefore, not to pursue the amendment. Whether a further legislative competence order will be required is another matter.
	There is, however, more to the situation. Historically, there has been a long series of clashes between the champions of distinct Welsh education provision and London Departments. There was a time when such clashes were between the popular representatives of the peoplethat is, the politiciansand the Administration here in London, with their murkier motives and strategies. The amendment mightor might notbe one further example of that historic clash. Since the advent of formal democratic devolution, however, there is the potential for a further clash, as has been mentioned. That clash is not between the people of Wales and the machine of Government, but between democratically elected representatives of the people of Wales here in London and democratically elected representatives in Wales. I do not know whether this debate is a clash of that sort, but as a Plaid Cymru MP, I know precisely where I stand on the matter, following the legislation to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred. To cut to the argument, I would ask one question: is the amendment really needed? If not, it should be rejected.
	Education is the main plank of the One Wales agreement for government between the Labour party and Plaid Cymru. That agreement sets out principles that the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) would scarcely argue against. For example, section 6, on Learning for Life, says:
	Our vision is of a society in which learning throughout life is the norm.
	The agreement continues by saying that
	our unwavering commitment is to give the children of Wales the best start in life, through providing a first-class education for all children, whatever their social origins or wherever they live.
	In the section on establishing a right to learn, the One Wales agreement says:
	We will provide a government-guaranteed right, backed up with new money, to education and accredited training until the age of eighteen, including a broader-based baccalaureate, incorporating vocational and academic learning opportunities, with a legislative framework.
	The intention behind the One Wales document of the Government in Cardiff could scarcely be clearer.
	The real question is whether the Welsh Assembly Government are to be trusted to implement their own policy. If they want to pursue a policy of compulsion, are they to be trusted to apply for a legislative competence order, should one be needed? Speaking for Plaid Cymru, I am glad to give that assurance. I would not presume to speak for the Labour party or the Government in Cardiff as a whole. However, as I have argued, the weight of our educational history suggests that we will take the radical course in Wales, not least because the provision of education and training up to the age of 18 is part of the binding agreement between the two great radical parties that now form the Government in Wales.

Nia Griffith: I listened carefully to the Minister and was particularly impressed by his assurance that it is possible for the Welsh Assembly Government to bring forth a LCO, should they so desire. I was also impressed by his emphasis on the need to leave them some flexibility as an option. If my amendment was accepted into the main measure that we are debating tonight, it could impinge upon that flexibility. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6
	  
	Learning and support contracts

'(1) This section applies where a person to whom this Part applies (the young person) is failing to fulfil the duty imposed by section 2.
	(2) A local education authority in England may enter into a learning and support contract with the young person if
	(a) the young person is resident in England, and
	(b) the authority considers that entering into the learning and support contract would be desirable in the interests of the young person's fulfilment of that duty.
	(3) A learning and support contract is a document which contains
	(a) a statement by the young person that the young person agrees to comply with such requirements as may be specified in the document for such period as so may be specified, and
	(b) a statement by the local education authority that it agrees to provide support to the young person for the purpose of complying with those requirements.
	(4) A learning and support contract must be signed by the young person, and signed on behalf of the local education authority.
	(5) A learning and support contract does not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or tort.'. [Mr. Hayes.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 9 Learning and support contracts (No. 2)
	'(1) This section applies where a person to whom this Part applies (the young person) is failing to fulfil the duty imposed by section 2.
	(2) A local education authority in England may enter into a learning and support contract with a young person
	(a) if the young person is resident in that authority's area; and
	(b) the authority considers that entering into the learning and support contract would be desirable in the interests of the young person's fulfilment of that duty.
	(3) A learning and support contract is a document which contains
	(a) a statement by the young person that the young person agrees to comply with such requirements as may be specified in the document for such period as so may be specified; and
	(b) a statement by the local education authority that it agrees to provide support to the young person for the purpose of complying with those requirements.
	(4) A learning and support contract must be signed by the young person, and signed on behalf of the local education authority.
	(5) A learning and support contract does not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or tort.'.
	New clause 13 Annual consultation with employers' organisations
	'On each anniversary of the coming into force of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult
	(a) the Confederation of British Industry,
	(b) the Institute of Directors,
	(c) the British Chambers of Commerce, and
	(d) the Federation of Small Businesses,
	to assess the effect the provisions in this Chapter have had in the previous twelve months, on the employment market for 16 and 17 year old people.'.
	New clause 23 Participation in vocational education
	'(1) A pupil who has completed three years of secondary education may leave school in order to pursue full-time vocational education elsewhere if the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied.
	(2) Those conditions are that the pupil
	(a) has the written permission of their parent or guardian not to continue in full-time education at school;
	(b) has the written permission of the head teacher of the school at which they are registered as a pupil not to continue in full-time education at school; and
	(c) has achieved level 5 at key stage 3 in English, mathematics and science.'.
	Amendment No. 45, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
	'(1) This Part does not apply to any person who
	(a) has full time learning responsibilities for a parent, sibling or other relation,
	(b) is a parent of a child under the age of 5,
	(c) is engaged in full time voluntary work,
	(d) has an illness requiring significant medical attention, or
	(e) has a terminal illness.'.
	Amendment No. 43, page 1, line 7, leave out 'is resident' and insert 'lives'.
	Amendment No. 44, page 1, line 7, leave out 'is resident' and insert 'currently resides'.
	Amendment No. 42, page 1, line 7, leave out 'resident'.
	Amendment No. 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert ', and
	(d) is not engaged in full-time sport or on a sporting apprenticeship.'.
	Amendment No. 2, page 1, line 10, at end insert ', and
	(d) has not written to the relevant local authority to request that their education and training entitlement under section 2 should be delayed until a specified future date.'.
	Amendment No. 3, page 1, line 10, at end insert ', and
	(d) is not engaged in voluntary activity for more than 20 hours per week.'.
	Amendment No. 4, page 1, line 10, at end insert ', and
	(d) is not a parent of a child who is aged 1 year or less.'.
	Amendment No. 8, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert
	'shall be entitled to 2 years of free education or training up to level 3, to be taken at any time after leaving education at the present compulsory school leaving age.'.
	Amendment No. 7, page 1, line 17, leave out paragraph (c) and insert
	'(c) be in full-time occupation (see section 5).'.
	Amendment No. 5, page 2, line 3, at end insert ', or
	(d) have signed and be participating in a learning and support contract entered into with a local education authority to provide personalised support leading to future participation in accredited education or training.'.
	Amendment No. 6, page 2, line 3, at end insert ', or
	(d) be in receipt of full-time non-educational support.'.
	Amendment No. 9, page 2, line 11, at end insert
	'(3) This section may not come into force until the Secretary of State has published an assessment of the availability of suitable education and training opportunities in each local authority area.'.
	Amendment No. 46, page 2, line 11, at end insert
	'(3) This section may not come into force until 90 per cent. of 16 and 17 year olds are, as certified by the Statistics Commission, participating in education or training.'.
	Amendment No. 47, page 2, line 11, at end insert
	'(3) This section may not come into force until the Learning and Skills Council has certified that in its opinion there are sufficient contracts of apprenticeship of suitable quality available to meet the level of demand by persons to whom this Part applies.'.
	Amendment No. 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, after 'two', insert 'knowledge-based'.
	Amendment No. 11, in clause 4, page 2, line 32, after 'ability', insert ', interests'.
	Amendment No. 10, page 2, leave out lines 34 and 35.
	Amendment No. 49, page 2, line 35, after 'sector', insert ', at home'.
	Amendment No. 50, page 2, line 35, after 'sector', insert ', in the workplace'.
	Amendment No. 12, page 2, line 41, at end insert
	'(4) Regulations must provide for appropriate full-time education or training which
	(a) is not in formal educational institutions,
	(b) is not accredited,
	(c) includes personalised support for non-educational needs.'.
	Amendment No. 13, in clause 6, page 4, line 6, leave out from 'Part' to end of line 7 and insert
	'training or education in relation to any person to whom this Part applies shall be regarded as relevant if and only if it is
	(a) training or education towards an accredited qualification provided by a course or courses, or
	(b) in-house training provided by an employer, or
	(c) training or education which, if the person concerned were participating in full time education or training, would be considered appropriate having regard to the person's age, ability, interests and aptitude, and any learning difficulties which the person may have.'.
	Amendment No. 51, page 4, line 7, at end insert
	'or in-house training provided by an employer in the course of full-time employment.'.
	Amendment No. 41, in clause 8, page 4, line 28, leave out from 'it' to end of line 39 and insert
	'(a) amounts in aggregate to at least 280 hours of guided learning, in the case of a relevant period which is one year;
	(b) amounts in aggregate to such number of hours of guided learning as is determined in accordance with regulations, in the case of any other relevant period; or
	(c) is designed to lead within a year to credits with a value equivalent to the credit value normally attached to qualifications estimated to require 280 hours of guided learning by the QCA or other accrediting bodies whose functions and qualifications are recognised by the European Credit Framework.'.
	Amendment No. 30, page 4, line 29, leave out 'guided learning' and insert 'learning time'.
	Amendment No. 31, page 4, line 31, leave out 'guided learning' and insert 'learning time'.
	Amendment No. 32, page 4, line 34, leave out 'guided learning' and insert 'learning time'.
	Amendment No. 33, page 4, line 35, leave out 'actual guided'.
	Amendment No. 34, page 4, line 39, leave out 'guided learning' and insert 'learning time'.
	Amendment No. 35, page 4, line 42, leave out 'actual guided learning' and insert 'learning time'.
	Amendment No. 36, page 5, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert 'or
	(c) in any unsupervised preparation or study, whether at home or otherwise, which a person is expected by the lecturer, tutor, teacher or other appropriate provider to take to complete the learning outcomes of a qualification or part of a qualification.'.
	Amendment No. 37, in clause 9, page 5, line 15, leave out 'guided learning' and insert 'learning time'.
	Amendment No. 38, page 5, line 21, leave out 'guided learning' and insert 'learning time'.
	Amendment No. 39, page 5, line 26, leave out 'guided learning' and insert 'learning time'.
	Amendment No. 40, page 5, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert 'or
	(c) on unsupervised preparation or study, whether at home or otherwise, where this work is allocated by a lecturer, tutor, supervisor or other appropriate provider of training or education.'.
	Amendment No. 29, in clause 10, page 6, line 2, at end insert
	'(2) This duty applies to all such persons under the supervision of the local authority youth offending team, including those in custody.'.
	Amendment No. 54, in clause 14, page 8, line 8, leave out from 'to' to end of line 9 and insert
	'provide advice in relation to careers, education or training.'.
	Amendment No. 59, page 8, line 9, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Chapter'.
	Amendment No. 16, page 8, line 13, at end insert
	'which relates directly to the pupil or student's educational record, and educational and support needs.'.
	Amendment No. 57, page 8, line 15, leave out 'if' and insert 'unless'.
	Amendment No. 58, page 8, line 20, leave out 'not'.
	Amendment No. 55, page 8, line 21, at end insert
	'(4A) An educational institution shall, at the beginning of each academic year, write to every student attending its institution informing them of their rights under subsection (4).'.
	Amendment No. 56, page 8, line 21, at end insert
	'(4A) Information supplied under this section may not be used by a local education authority for the purpose of enforcing the duty to participate in education or training under the provision of Chapter 5 of this Part.'.
	Amendment No. 60, in clause 15, page 8, line 27, leave out 'exercise its functions under this Part' and insert
	'provide advice in relation to careers, education or training'.
	Amendment No. 62, page 8, line 27, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Chapter'.
	Amendment No. 61, page 9, line 18, at end insert
	'(8) Information supplied under this section may not be used by a local education authority for the purposes of enforcing the duty to participate in education or training under the provisions of Chapter 5 of this Part.'.
	Amendment No. 18, in clause 16, page 9, line 21, after 'person', insert
	'whose written consent for this supply of information has been sought and given.'.
	Amendment No. 63, page 9, line 22, leave out 'exercise its functions under this Part' and insert
	'provide advice in relation to careers, education or training'.
	Amendment No. 17, page 9, line 22, after 'functions', insert 'solely in relation to providing support.'.
	Amendment No. 65, page 9, line 23, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Chapter'.
	Amendment No. 66, page 9, line 31, at end insert
	'(2A) Within seven days of supplying information the persons and bodies listed in subsection (2) must be inform the person about whom they are supplying information that such information has been supplied to a local education authority.'.
	Amendment No. 64, page 9, line 36, at end insert
	'(4) Information supplied under this section may not be used by a local education authority for the purposes of enforcing the duty to participate in education or training under the provisions of Chapter 5 of this Part.'.
	Amendment No. 67, in clause 17, in page 10, line 5, leave out 'for any relevant purpose' and insert
	'only to provide advice in relation to careers education or training'.
	Amendment No. 68, page 10, line 12, at end insert
	'(6A) Information supplied under this section may not be used by a local education authority for the purpose of enforcing the duty to participate in education or training under the provisions of Chapter 5 of this Part.'.
	Amendment No. 69, page 10, line 22, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Chapter'.
	Amendment No. 19, in clause 21, page 11, line 37, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 11 on page 12 and insert
	'who has not either attained a level 3 qualification or who is not in certified or in-house education or training.'.
	Amendment No. 70, page 12, line 13, at end insert
	'(4) For the purposes of this section, the steps that an employer is expected to take to fulfil its obligations in subsection (1) shall not include contacting a college of further education to verify
	(a) that the young person is enrolled,
	(b) that the young person is attending courses, or
	(c) the number of hours of attendance the young person's course requires.'.
	Amendment No. 71, in clause 34, page 19, line 16, at end insert
	'(7) The provisions of this section shall not come into force until the recommendations of the review of the national strategy for carers have been implemented.'.
	Amendment No. 72, in clause 39, page 22, line 8, at end insert
	'(7A) In this section, reasonable excuse includes circumstances in which a young person
	(a) is homeless,
	(b) has health problems, including temporary illness, long term disability or ongoing mental health issues,
	(c) has addiction problems,
	(d) has secured a place on a course which does not start until the following month or the following term,
	(e) is recovering from giving birth,
	(f) has caring responsibilities, or
	(g) has particular learning difficulties for which support has not been put in place.'.
	Amendment No. 73, in clause 40, page 22, line 17, leave out 'and'.
	Amendment No. 74, page 22, line 20, at end insert 'and
	(d) all other measures have been undertaken by the local authority to encourage the young person to fulfil the duty imposed by section 2.'.
	Government amendment No. 100
	Amendment No. 22, in clause 41, page 23, line 23, at end insert
	', having regard to a person's age, ability, interests, aptitudes and needs (if any) for personalised support and personalised learning opportunities.'.
	Amendment No. 75, page 23, line 23, at end insert
	', having regard to a person's ability, prior educational attainment and special educational needs.'.
	Amendment No. 76, page 23, line 23, at end insert
	', having regard to a person's needs and circumstances.'.
	Amendment No. 78, in clause 42, page 23, line 37, leave out second 'a' and insert 'an independent'.
	Amendment No. 77, page 23, line 37, after 'panel' insert 'of three people'.
	Amendment No. 23, page 23, line 38, at end insert
	'(1A) The regulations shall provide for a duty on local authorities to make available independent advocacy services for those young people who would benefit from such services.'.
	Amendment No. 79, page 24, line 7, leave out 'chairs' and insert 'is a member of'.
	Amendment No. 80, page 24, line 7, after 'member' insert 'or employee'.
	Amendment No. 20, in clause 43, page 24, line 29, at end insert
	'(4) In considering an appeal the attendance panel must invite the young person who is appealing against the attendance notice, or the young person's nominated representative, to make representations to it.'.
	Amendment No. 81, page 24, line 29, at end insert
	'(4) Regulations made under subsection (3) shall provide that a young person making an appeal may attend the attendance panel appeal hearing and, if they wish, may be accompanied by an advocate or friend.'.
	Amendment No. 24, in clause 45, page 25, line 19, at end insert
	'(2A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that he or she is
	(a) in treatment for a serious medical condition,
	(b) terminally ill,
	(c) caring for a family member who is seriously ill, or
	(d) unlikely to benefit from the education, training or service offered.'.
	Amendment No. 25, in page 25, line 21, at end insert
	'(4) No offence under this section will have to be disclosed by a person who is convicted of the offence of failing to comply with an attendance notice.'.
	Amendment No. 82, in page 25, line 21, at end insert
	'(4) A conviction under this section shall be regarded as spent on the date the young person convicted of such an offence reaches the age of 18.'.
	Amendment No. 83, in page 25, line 21, at end insert
	'(4) A conviction under this section shall not be
	'(a) a recordable offence under the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000 (S.I 2000/1139), and
	(b) disclosed in Criminal Records Bureau checks.'.
	Amendment No. 84, in page 25, line 21, at end insert
	'(4) A conviction under this section shall be regarded as spent after 12 months.'.
	Government amendment No. 105
	Amendment No. 85, in clause 46, page 26, line 3, after '45', insert 'and an advocate or friend'.
	Amendment No. 86, in clause 47, page 26, line 15, after 'notice' insert 'for the payment of 50'.
	Amendment No. 26, page 26, line 28, at end insert
	', provided that such penalty does not exceed 50 or the weekly amount of maximum educational maintenance allowance.'.
	Amendment No. 21, in clause 48, page 27, line 19, at end insert
	'(4) In considering an appeal the attendance panel must invite the young person who is appealing against the penalty notice, or the young person's nominated representative, to make representations to it.'.
	Amendment No. 87, in page 27, line 19, at end insert
	'(4) Regulations made under subsection (3) shall provide that a young person making an appeal may attend the attendance panel appeal hearing and, if they wish, may be accompanied by an advocate or friend.'.
	Amendment No. 88, in clause 54, page 30, line 7, leave out 'services' and insert
	'information, advice and guidance about education and career opportunities'.
	Amendment No. 89, page 30, line 9, at end insert
	'(1A) Services made available under subsection (1) shall be appropriate to the needs of the young person, including those young people with special educational needs.'.
	Amendment No. 152, in clause 59, page 33, line 16, at end insert
	'(c) the provision, in response to requests by young persons and relevant young adults with visual impairment, of text books and educational course materials, capable of enlargement and enhancement by electronic means.'.
	Amendment No. 150, in clause 67, page 39, line 26, after 'includes', insert 'workplace based'.
	Amendment No. 151, page 39, line 30, after 'includes', insert 'workplace based'.
	Amendment No. 91, in clause 68, page 40, line 8, at end insert
	'(2) The Secretary of State shall commission an independent review into the effectiveness of the transport arrangements of local authorities, schools and colleges resulting from the entitlement to study each of the diploma lines.'.
	Amendment No. 92, page 40, line 8, at end insert
	'(2) This section may not come into force before the Secretary of State has published the research conducted by York Consulting into the transport needs arising from the introduction of diplomas.'.

John Hayes: I rise to speak to this enormous group of amendments, mindful of the fact that the time in which to do so is very short indeed. I therefore hope that the House will forgive me if I focus on just some of the amendments, rather than try to deal with them all in detail.
	New clause 6 would introduce learning support contracts, where the young person concerned is failing to fulfil the duty imposed by clause 2. Learning support contracts are modelled on the parenting contracts in clause 34. A learning support contract would contain a statement by the young person that they agreed to comply with such requirements as may be specified in the document and a statement by the local education authority that it agreed to provide support to the young person for the purposes of complying with those requirements. Parents and carers would also be involved unless the young person was living independently.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and I made clear during the earlier stages of the Bill, Conservatives believe that a learning support contract should always be considered before an attendance notice is issued. By amending clause 39(5)(b), and providing a mechanism for intervening earlier, beforeand, ideally, instead ofthe enforcement process, our desire is to minimise the chance of enforcement proceedings taking place, because of the damaging effect that they can have on a young person's prospects. I accept that there is a desire shared across the Chamber to encourage participation by as many post-16-year-olds as possible, but I do not think that anyone wants to see young people being prosecuted. The new clause would help to avoid that possibility.
	Time and again, we heard in evidence sessions that young people could be criminalised by the Bill. That is a great concern not only to the young people but to many of the organisations that work with the most disadvantaged members of our society. As compassionate Conservatives, we make no apology for allocating a disproportionate degree of concern, energy and intellectual capital to the defence of the most vulnerable people in our land. The experience of those who deal with young peopleparticularly with disengaged and troubled young peoplewas made clear by their evidence. They believe that, if those young people were stigmatised or criminalised, they could become entirely disengaged and impossible to re-engage.
	For example, we heard from Martina Milburn, the chief executive of the Prince's Trust, who told us that
	the bulk of the 40,000 people who we worked with last year had issues with drugs and alcohol. What do you do with a young person who is already going down the path of taking too many drugs and drinking too much...The question is how you deal with that. Do you increasingly criminalise young people and just say, 'Right, we're going to lock you all up,' or do you find some way of trying to reach them and sort out some of their issues?[ Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 16, Q36.]
	That evidence graphically illustrates that the young people in the greatest need are the least likely to benefit from a Bill that coerces them and, ultimately, if they do not abide by their duties, criminalises them. Hence our attempt at this juncture to soften the impact of the part of the Bill that might do just that, by building in an additional protection for those vulnerable young people. The Association of School and College Leaders said in its briefing on the Bill that its preferred approach to achieving full participation was by persuasion rather than by coercion.
	There is no lack of commitment among those on the Conservative Benches to the principle of increasing the participation of post-16-year-olds in education. Indeed, we regard ourselves as being at the forefront of that campaign. However, we believe that we are most likely to achieve that by inspiring, by encouraging, by moving the hearts and minds of young people, rather than by coercion.
	Early intervention has long been an aspiration in the delivery of services for children and young people

Jim Knight: rose

John Hayes: I will happily give way when I have finished this sentence.
	Early intervention has long been an aspiration in the delivery of services for children and young people, but, in reality, over-stretched budgets make it hard to achieve that in practice. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this intervention to acknowledge those difficulties, to pay tribute to the people who deal with them on a day-to-day basis and to recognise the strength of the evidence that we were given when he and I listened to the people who are dealing with these problems at the sharp end.

Jim Knight: There are certainly some excellent people doing excellent work at the sharp end. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he supports the principle of people carrying on learning until they are 18. How does he think that we are going to bring that about in practice? If he says that the answer is simply good schools, will he also tell us when he thinks we will achieve 100 per cent. participation solely on the basis of encouragement and good schools?

John Hayes: The Minister is encouraging me to be rather more critical of him than I would instinctively choose to be. However, because he has encouraged me, let me say that, when we debated the Bill in Committee, he made it clear that he believed that the vast majority of young peopleincluding many who are disengagedcould be re-engaged not by compulsion but by the quality of the offer that the Government would seductively put before them. Furthermore, when I scrutinised his remarks closely, he acknowledged that there would always be a certain number of young people who would truant. We know that because, of the people who are currently obliged to attend school or college up to the age of 16, a proportion do not do so. We do not succeed in getting a 100 per cent. of those who are legally obliged to go to school or college to do so.
	The question that I put to the Minister thenI put it to him again now; perhaps he will intervene on me to answer itwas as follows: given that he thinks that about 90 per cent. of young people might be encouraged to participate post-16, and that about 5 or 6 per cent. of young people do not attend school, is he suggesting that coercion will affect only about 4 or 5 per cent. of young people? I am simply more ambitious and more positive, and less sceptical and cynical, than he is about our capacity to engage people without coercion.

Jim Knight: I shall be happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question as soon as he has given me a clear answer as to when Conservative policy would deliver 100 per cent. participation in education and training. When would that be?

John Hayes: I want to press on with our proper scrutiny of this very broad group of amendments, but I will just say that my estimation is that that is most likely to happen when a Conservative Government are returned to power, and when Ministers are prepared to stand up for the interests of young people in a way that engages them, encourages them and stimulates their imagination

Edward Balls: rose

John Hayes: I am not going to give way to the Secretary of State, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think that he is trying to encourage me to deviate in a way that you would not be happy with. I would not want to do that.

Edward Balls: rose

John Hayes: Let me move on, but I will give way later. I do not want to be ungenerous

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to concentrate on the amendments to which he is speaking.

John Hayes: I knew that you were going to say that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not going to be encouraged by the Secretary of State. I am going to abide by your ruling, because that is the right thing to do.
	The Bill, as currently drafted, would not allow for the learning support contracts that we recommend in our new clause. We believe that they are an important mechanism for intervening earlier in young people's lives, and that they would have a particularly valuable impact on the young people who are the hardest to get at, in terms of engagement. They would provide a framework for a local authority to agree with a young person, and their parents or carer, how that young person was to fulfil their duty to participate, and how that arrangement was to be supported. I am sure that the Government will embrace the new clause, because it would improve the Bill. It in no way contradicts the Bill's proper intent; it simply seeks to make it more palatable, more workable and more effective.

Philip Davies: Following that theme, I know that my hon. Friend is cantering through a large number of amendments, but will he comment briefly on my new clause 23, which encourages a more horses for courses approach to education whereby people can leave the academic field and opt for a vocational education from the age of 14, provided that they have parental permission, a head teacher's approval and that they have reached level 5 at key stage 3 in English, maths and science? Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing children to go down a vocational

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Member maybe lucky enough to catch my eye later in the debate.

John Hayes: I would be delighted to comment on that over a lovely lunch, perhaps at Wiltons, which I know my hon. Friend would be only too happy to buy me.
	Amendment No. 70

Edward Balls: rose

John Hayes: Perhaps there is another lunch in the offing.
	Amendment No. 70 and new clause 13 deal with duties on employers. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, clause 21 places a duty on employers not to employ a person unless they have taken reasonable steps to check that the person has made appropriate arrangements to participate in relevant training or education. The explanatory notes state that if an employer does not fulfil his duty under clause 21, clause 22
	provides for a local education authority to serve a penalty notice on the employer and sets out the circumstances in which the notice can be given.
	We had an interesting debate in Committee about the burden these duties will place on employers. Particularly pertinent to that debate was the evidence offered by Professor Alison Wolf of King's college, London. She told the Committee during an early evidence session that in her estimation,
	the negative impact that the Bill will have, by effectively destroying the labour market of 16 and 17-year-olds, is enormously underestimated. That might be justified if one were confident that they were going to be doing something that was extremely valuable. Since one is not, and since we know that on-the-job experience is demonstrably extremely valuable to people, I think we have to take the impact on the job market extremely seriously. I think the effect will be very serious and almost totally negative.[ Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c16, Q34]
	The cost of employer checking is much higher in the Institute of Directors' estimation than the Government assume. The IOD says:
	Government figures estimate that the process of employer checking is a single exchange of paper between an employee and employer which will take ten minutes
	and therefore cost approximately 16.8 million nationally. It continues:
	In reality this process will actually require a mixture of discussion, checking, altering of work rotas and/or addressing employees' needs.
	The IOD projects that it will cost more than double the figure suggested by the Government. The top estimate is that it could cost up to 68 million a year. The administrative burden also accounts for what it calculates to be a 32 per cent. hike in the Department's imposition on business. That is entirely contrary to the Government's policy, articulated by the Minister, of reducing the administrative burden on businesses by 25 per cent. The consequential unintended impact of the clause could be that employers employ only people who are older than the proposed compulsory ageprecisely the argument of Professor Wolf and others.
	That problem may be especially profound in small and medium-sized businesses. I suspect that the very large organisations, as so often with bureaucratic and administrative burdens, have the capacity to absorb the extra costs in a way that small businesses simply do not. For example, a small training business that employs a 17-year-old to work in numerous different jobs will spend less time on tasks such as marketing and business and more on burdensome administration. It is therefore important to review the impact of the clause after 12 months. We must find out whether the Ministry is right and the Government's estimates are borne out or whether the IOD and Professor Wolf are more accurate in their estimation of the detrimental effects of the employment of young people on the costs of businesses to checking their new obligations.
	We debated these issues in earlier stages of our consideration. In response to these concerns, the Minister for Schools and Learners sought to reassure the Committee by saying that
	if employers want to take on a young person for more than 20 hours a week in a situation when they are not providing their own accredited training, the young person will need to provide evidence that they have made arrangements to attend training or education before they can start employment. The employer will simply need to check that before allowing the employment to begin. If he does not, he will be failing to meet his duty. Employers will not be required to do anything further, such as calling the college to check that the young person has enrolled there; nor would they have an ongoing duty to check that they were attending the course...employers would not have to check the number of hours.  [Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 19 February 2008; c. 556.]
	Our amendment No. 70 would put those assurances on the face of the Bill. Once again, we merely attempt to improve the Bill as a responsible Opposition should, given that we agree with the basic premise that we want as many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds to be involved in education and training as possible. By building those assurances into the Bill, we hope to limit the damage that the legislation might otherwise do to youth employment and to costs faced by businesses, particularly small businesses.
	That is also why we tabled new clause 13, which requires the Government to consult the CBI and the IOD as well as the British Chambers of Commerce, and the Federation of Small Businesses in order to assess the effect that duties on employers have had in 12 months' time and similarly the impact of the provisions on the employment market for 16 and 17-year-olds. It is absolutely right that we take a raincheck by making a judgment about the Bill's effect over time. That is what a responsible Government would do; it is what a responsible Secretary of State would want; so, once again, I cannot imagine that the Government will not embrace these suggestionsthese amendments and new clauseswith relish. In Committee there was some dispute about the length of time it will take for employers to check whether the young people they employ are fulfilling their duties under legislation. In particular, there was a difference between the burden estimated by the Minister and, as I said, the much greater burden estimated by the IOD.
	Amendment No. 88an important amendment, in our estimationwould amend clause 54. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton spoke about the importance of getting young people the right careers advice when we debated the matter in Committee. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is my considered view that it is critical, if we are to engage young people, that they are given appropriate guidance, so that they understand the merits of the various training and education options that confront them. I think that that will be best done by an all-age careers service, such as the ones in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government do not currently agree, although I suspect that they might come round to our view over time. Our amendment is designed to clarify the functions of local authorities under clause 54. At the end of the day, the success of efforts to increase participation will be dependent, as Conservative Members have argued repeatedly, on inspiring young people with a new thirst for learning. Well directed advice and guidance will play a vital role in that.
	In Committee, the Minister did not, by contrast, inspire any confidence that the current deficiencies of the Connexions service will be corrected as the service is transferred to local authority control. We support the work that Connexions does with troubled young people. It does an excellent job for that minority of young people with particular difficulties, but it is a Jack-of-all-trades. It is expected to do a great dealto be an expert on sexual health advice and drugs issues, as well as on careers. Surely a dedicated service, sitting alongside Connexions, would do the job better.
	Back in 1997, the Dearing report concluded that good careers advice and guidance was essential to expanding participation in higher education. Lord Dearing recommended that careers advice should be integrated to form a single lifelong guidance service, but the Government decided to fragment rather than to integrate careers advice, and abolished the careers service for young people and replaced it with Connexions, which has many jobs to do, as I said. That lack of focus has surely been damaging.
	In the joint memorandum on the Bill, all the main organisations involved in career guidance, including the National Association of Connexions Partners and the Institute of Career Guidance, expressed the concern that the local authority duty under the Bill are not specific enough. It went on to state:
	Effective participation requires assistance with choices. Such advice and guidance must be about choices not merely of which learning option to follow, but why,
	and that there must be clear progression beyond the age of 18
	into employment (either directly or via further training or higher education). The key is that choices about the relationship between learning and worki.e. about careershould drive participation in learning.
	This business of high-quality advice and guidance is surely critical to the success of the Bill. Our amendment would place a clear duty on local authorities to provide such services, and it does so by placing that duty on the face of the Bill.
	Incredibly, there is no mention of careers advice in any of the four core functions of Connexions specified by the Minister in a letter to the Committee dated 8 May. Rather, it states that the information, advice and guidance given to young people should help them make
	positive choices about learning, raise their aspirations, equip them to make safe and informed health and lifestyle choices.
	It addresses none of the concerns raised by careers professionals. If the Minister agrees that effective participation is dependent on proper advice and guidance, he should once again take the sound advice of careers professionals, listen to the people at the sharp end, and support our amendment.
	I could speak at length about some of the other new clauses and amendments in this immense group. I could discuss, for instance, issues relating to the restricting of information and the right of students to own information, information-sharing, and sensitive data not being used to force participation. There are also real concerns about whether the current methods of storing information are fit for purposeconcerns that were raised with us during our evidence sessions by the Association of Colleges, which felt that the current Connexions database was not the best tool and was not adequate to perform the job that we expected of it under the new legislation.
	Those matters are important, but as time forbids me to explore them in the depth that the House deserves, I shall restrict myself to dealing with amendment No. 72. The amendment would enable clause 39 to define a reasonable excuse for non-participation. It would include
	circumstances in which a young person
	(a) is homeless,
	(b) has health problems, including temporary illness, long term disability or ongoing mental health issues,
	(c) has addiction problems,
	(d) has secured a place on a course which does not start until the following month or the following term,
	(e) is recovering from giving birth.
	The background to the amendment is a discussion of the meaning of reasonable excuse during the Committee's evidence session on Tuesday 29 January. The Minister undertook to write to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) outlining in more detail what would constitute a reasonable excuse under the Bill. Our amendment reiterates the circumstances outlined by the Minister in his letter of 1 February. We accept that, as the Minister said in his letter, the list is not exhaustive, but given that non-compliance with the Bill could ultimately result in a fine and a criminal record, we do not think it good enough for what is meant by reasonable excuse to be specified merely by guidance to local authorities. We think that it should be stated in the Bill, so that there is more clarity and confidence in relation to the enforcement process.
	Our desire throughout has been to protect the interests of young people, particularly vulnerable young people. The Minister said in his letter that it would be up to local authorities to interpret the concept of a reasonable excuse. There is a real danger of inconsistency between local authorities, and a consequent danger that the enforcement process will vary according to where people live. That would surely not be in line with the Government's ambitions and policies.
	I will end my speech now, so that the Secretary of State has time to respond. He will know that many of the organisations that have expressed anxieties about the Bill support our new clauses and amendments. Organisations such as Rainer, the Prince's Trust and Barnardo's seek to amend the Bill in precisely the way that I have described. In that spirit, I expect the Secretary of State, with alacrity and with some style, to accept the arguments that I have advanced.

David Laws: We all look forward to hearing the Secretary of State deal with the 110 amendments and new clauses in this group before the knife falls, so I shall keep my comments relatively brief and try to return to some of the issues on Third Reading. I shall single out four or five issues on which I hope the Secretary of State will be able to touch, even in this short time.
	As the Secretary of State will have noticed, new clauses 6 and 9 are very similar to each other and also to new clause 1, which I tabled with a number of colleagues in Committee and which I freely admit was inspired by Rainer and Barnardo's. It appears that they have inspired my party, which has in turn inspired the Conservative party. I am pleased that there is such a degree of inspiration.
	New clause 9 is extremely important to us, as it relates to the basic flexibilities that there will be, particularly to deal with young people who have social or medical problemsthey might be precisely the young people who have dropped out of education before the age of 16, and they will probably be part of the significant group who are at present routinely absent from school at the age of 14 or 15. We want the Bill to include undertakings that support will be available for such young people; that the budgets will be in place for that; and, equally importantly, that those young people who would find it difficult to be in a formal education or training setting because of the other problems have the option to be in some kind of supported environment that may be a stepping stone to education or training but may fall far short of the kind of accreditation that the Government envisage in the Bill for either those in employment or those in a formal educational setting.
	The Minister for Schools and Learners gave undertakings in Committee that he would aspire to have such flexibility and that he did not want young people with support needs to have to go through the enforcement mechanisms. However, many Members would feel far more reassured about that if it were stated in the Bill. I hope that this issue will be returned to in another place, if it is not dealt with in this House; I hope that the Government will agree to include these undertakings in the Bill, as that is extremely important to us.
	Amendment No. 29 addresses a matter that we did not debate in our earlier proceedings: how young people in custody or under the supervision of a youth offending team will be treated in relation to the duties to be in education or training. At present, far too many young people in custody experience little in the way of educational and training support. The pressures in the prison system have led to downward pressure on the number of hours young people in prison spend in education, training or employment, and we want undertakings from Ministers that young people who are in custody or under the supervision of youth offending teams will not also be overlooked by the learning and support proposals that we hope will be in the Bill.
	We would also like to hear moreamendments Nos. 16 and 18 relate to thisabout the protections there will be for the records of young people who are affected by this Bill, when information about them is passed not only from educational organisations but particularly from non-educational organisations. We had an extensive debate on that in Committee, and many Members are still concerned about the type of information that could be accessed and its relevance.
	Amendments Nos. 19 and 70 relate to the crucial issue of the flexibility there will be for employers in relation to the provision of in-house training and the burden of checking on those young people aged 16 and 17 who will be employed by businesses, which will have obligations to check whether those individuals are compliant with the Bill's proposals on accredited education and training. We have a concern, which has also been expressed by those on the Conservative Benches, that some of these proposals could destroy the youth labour market and close down job opportunities, which might be better for some young people than being in a more formal education and training setting.
	On young people's rights in the process of appeal, we discussed in Committee whether a young person or their representative could be invited to attend the appeal stage in relation to the issuance of any attendance notice. We would like to know whether the Government are willing to be more flexible on that, and whether they have further considered the limits there will be on the penalties imposed on young people and how they will relate to young people's incomes, particularly for those on very low incomes, and to the current level of the education maintenance allowance.
	Having left the Secretary of State so much time, I hope he will now be able to respond to a few of those issues at least.

Philip Davies: I intend to use just a minute of the remaining time to highlight new clause 23, which would allow a pupil to leave school after year 9, at the age of 14, to pursue full-time vocational education, provided they had the written permission of their parent or guardian and of their head teacher, and that they had achieved level 5 at key stage 3 in English, maths and science.
	This country has the big problem of trying to force all children down the same academic route in schools. I believe in horses for courses. Every child is good at something, and we should provide an education system that allows children to pursue their area of expertise and the areas in which they might be able to thrive, rather than force them to stay at school to pursue an academic line when it clearly does not suit them. Some children are playing truant from school and some are causing big problems for teachers in terms of school discipline. Allowing such children to leave school at age 14 to pursue full-time vocational education would re-engage some of them with the education system, it would provide them with the skills they need for future employment and it would improve the discipline and truancy rates in our schools.
	The proposal is also supported by many teaching unions. Stuart Herdson, who is both a constituent of mine and the immediate past president of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, supports it. He has articulated such a proposal on many occasions, and I pay tribute to him for doing so. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the proposal, and to how we can allow children, whatever their expertise, to shine in that particular area and how we can encourage more vocational education, rather than forcing everybody down an academic route.

Edward Balls: I shall speak to Government amendments Nos. 100 and 105, and try to respond to as many points as possible. I want particularly to focus on new clauses 6 and 9, but before I do so, may I say to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that I very much understand the points that he makes? The work that we are doing on studio schools and alternative provision deals precisely with the issues that he raises. All the powers that we need to provide vocational opportunities outside the school setting are already in placewe do not need new legislationbut I would be happy to ensure that he receives detailed briefing on that matter as we move towards our alternative provision White Paper.
	A number of other detailed issues were discussed at length in Committee. I know that because I have been told as much by my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners, who described to me the length of the Committee debates. He seems to have managed to organise today's business to reveal to me just how lengthy the debates were; he has ensured that I have dealt with all today's debates rather than him, although he will get an opportunity on Third Reading.
	On amendment No. 29, I can reassure the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that young people in custody will not be excluded from the Bill's provision and that we will ensure that their needs are properly addressed. I can reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that information and guidance are paramount to our thinking too. He rightly says that they are integral to the success of the Bill, but I do not think that strengthening the Bill in this regard will make any difference, because what really matters is ensuring that we deliver, with the local authorities, on the information and guidance requirements that we have set out.
	As we have discussed before, I think that Alison Wolf is far too pessimistic on the jobs issue, not least because 65 per cent. of young people aged 16 to 18 who are in work will not be affected at all by these provisions. They are working part-timethey are doing fewer than 20 hours a weekso will be entirely unaffected. Her estimates are far too pessimistic, but we are determined to work with the CBI and other employer organisations supporting the Bill to ensure that there is no negative impact on the youth labour market. As somebody who worked closely on the minimum wage to ensure that it had no negative impact on the youth labour market, I can assure hon. Members that that is of paramount importance to me.
	On amendment No. 70, I say to Opposition Members that there will not be a need for employers to check with individual learning providers on enrolmentthat will not be a matter for them. I know that those issues were discussed at length in Committee, and we have been true to what we said then. I do not think there is a need to amend the Bill; the important thing is to ensure that we deliver on the commitments that we have made, and we will do that.
	Youth appeals are a matter for the Ministry of Justicethe penalties regimerather than for our Department, but we will ensure that we consult it fully. On information sharing, I know that there has been a report today from the Joint Committee that oversees human rights issues. We will respond in due course and ensure that our response goes to hon. Members in advance of those issues being discussed in the Lords.
	As we have discussed, new clauses 6 and 9 have been raised by Barnardo's and by Rainer. We are grateful to them and to Opposition Members for the part they have played in highlighting the approach being set out with learning agreements and for the work done on the education maintenance allowance, which is all about a quid pro quosomething for something, whereby young people have to demonstrate that they are learning and attending to get the money. We have also introduced issues around behaviour to the EMA. That shows that we are sympathetic to this approach.
	We are piloting and delivering a similar approach in activity agreements and learning agreements for 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. Many voluntary sector organisations, including Barnardo's and Rainer, have played an important part in that something for something contract. The issue is whether we need to put that in the Bill.
	We believe that many local authorities will want to go down that road. It is part of ensuring that sanctions and penalties are very much a last resort, as was discussed in detail in Committee. We would go further and strongly encourage local authorities to pursue the approach being proposed by Rainer and by Barnardo's, and to go down that road before considering any formal enforcement action against a young person.
	We support that approach and will specify that in guidance to local authorities, but we do not think that the right thing to do is set it out in primary legislation. It is better to leave flexibility and discretion to local experts who know the needs of particular young people. It would be too inflexible and encumbering to specify it. At this stage, the right thing to do is work with careers services and local authorities to ensure that these measures are genuinely tailored to the needs of young people and we will do so

John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Edward Balls: I will not take any interventions. We will do so in consultation with Barnardo's and Rainer.
	This is my final point. I have also studied in detail what Barnardo's and Rainer said on the more general point, which is made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), about whether compulsion is the right way to go in the Bill. It is absolutely at the heart of the Bill. Martin Narey said:
	I think it was Michael Gove who said on Second Reading that you cannot take a horse to water, but my experience is that you can.
	Barnardo's said:
	If you use compulsion simply to force a 16 or 17-year-old back into the same classroom environment from which he has been truanting since year 11, it will fail. But, if you use compulsion to open his or her eyes to a different form of education or training, it can work.
	That is the approach we are taking. We are not compelling young people to go into school; we are providing opportunities for work with training or apprenticeships.
	Another expert who gave evidence to the Committee, Paul Head

Graham Stuart: Give way!

Edward Balls: I have two minutes. If I give way, I will not be able to answer the question.
	Paul Head, principal of North East London college, said:
	The reason I welcome compulsion is that it changes the nature of the terms of the debate. You no longer ask, 'How do we work our way up to 85 or 90 per cent.?' You actually start asking, 'Why are we not at 100 per cent.?'
	That is the critical difference. We are ambitious for every young person, not just some.
	Our approach to the Bill is to ensure that school, college, work with training or an apprenticeship are available to all. We start from an assumption of 100 per cent. Rather than starting from 80 or 85 per cent. and working up, we want to ask, Why don't we have 100 per cent.? That is our approach. The system can be galvanised, as Barnardo's, Rainer, the Prince's Trust and the principal of North East London college say, by starting from an assumption that that is universal for all.
	That is why we have consistently said that we should have a universal system for all. Compulsion as a last resort is necessary. I urge Opposition Members to change their minds, support excellence for all, not just for some, and back the Bill.

John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State therefore allow consistency on the matter of a reasonable excuse, in the way that Barnado's and Rainer want, or is he prepared to let that matter be inconsistent, given that he wants a universal level of participation?

Edward Balls: It is important that we consult the local authorities and specify that point clearly in guidance. It does not need to be in primary legislation, although we are happy to take forward the issue of learning agreements. The fundamental issue is whether we believe that every young person should be in school, college or an apprenticeship, or that just some should be. In Committee, Opposition Members opposed the Bill on that issue. It goes to the heart of the legislation. It is not too late
	 It being Nine o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker  proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 259.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 39
	  
	Failure to fulfil duty under section 2: initial steps

Amendment proposed: No. 72, page 22, line 8, at end insert
	'(7A) In this section, reasonable excuse includes circumstances in which a young person
	(a) is homeless,
	(b) has health problems, including temporary illness, long term disability or ongoing mental health issues,
	(c) has addiction problems,
	(d) has secured a place on a course which does not start until the following month or the following term,
	(e) is recovering from giving birth,
	(f) has caring responsibilities, or
	(g) has particular learning difficulties for which support has not been put in place.'. [ Mr. Hayes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 258.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 15
	  
	Information: supply by the Secretary of State

Amendments made: No. 94, page 8, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 26 and insert
	'(1) Social security information may be supplied'.
	No. 95, line 29, leave out from 'is' to end of line 32 and insert
	'held for the purposes of functions relating to social security
	(a) by the Secretary of State, or
	(b) by a person providing services to the Secretary of State in connection with the provision of those services.'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 16
	  
	Information: supply by public bodies

Amendment made: No. 96, page 9, line 29, at end insert
	'( ) a provider of probation services,'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 17
	  
	Sharing and use of information held for purposes of support services or functions under this part

Amendment made: No.97, page 10, line 29, leave out from 'authority' to 'services' in line 32 and insert
	'itself provides services in exercise of its functions under subsection (1) of section 54, the authority;
	(b) where, in exercise of its functions under subsection (3)(b) of that section, the authority makes arrangements for the provision of'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 33
	  
	Other amendments of Employment Rights Act 1996

Amendments made: No. 98, page 18, line 21, after '26' insert 'of that Act'.
	No. 99, line 26, at end insert
	'( ) In section 108 (qualifying period of employment), after subsection (3)(dd) insert
	(de) section 101B applies,.'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 41
	  
	Attendance notice: description of education or training

Amendment made: No. 100, page 23, line 23, leave out 'be suitable for the person.' and insert '
	(a) be appropriate full-time education or training, or
	(b) otherwise be suitable for the person, having regard
	(i) to the person's age, ability and aptitude, and
	(ii) to any learning difficulty which the person may have.
	( ) Subsections (5) and (6) of section 13 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (persons with learning difficulties) apply for the purposes of subsection (5)(b).'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 44
	  
	Variation and revocation of attendance notice

Amendment made: No. 101, page 25, line 8, at end insert
	'( ) Regulations under subsection (6)(b) may in particular make provision as to the procedure to be followed in relation to the giving of any consent under the regulations.'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 46
	  
	Restrictions on proceedings for offences under section 45

Amendments made: No. 102, page 25, line 33, leave out 'and'.
	No. 103, line 35, at end insert 'and'.
	No. 104, line 36, leave out from beginning to 'authority' in line 39 and insert
	'(c) an attendance panel established by the local education authority under section 42 has, on being consulted by the local education authority about the question whether the proceedings should be instituted, recommended to the'.
	No. 105, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert
	'( ) Regulations
	(a) must make provision to secure that, before a recommendation under subsection (4)(c) is made by an attendance panel in a person's case, the person has an opportunity to make representations to the panel, and
	(b) may make other provision as to the procedure to be followed in relation to the making of such recommendations.'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 47
	  
	Failure to comply with attendance notice: penalty notice

Amendments made: No. 106, page 26, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert
	'has committed an offence under section 45 relating to the notice,'.
	No. 107, line 15, leave out 'failure mentioned in paragraph (a)' and insert 'offence'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 53
	  
	Interpretation of Part

Amendment made: No. 108, page 29, line 21, at end insert
	'proprietor, in relation to a school or other institution, means the person or body of persons responsible for its management;'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 61
	  
	Information relating to young persons: supply by Secretary of State

Amendments made: No. 109, page 34, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 14 and insert
	'(1) Social security information may be supplied'.
	No. 110, page 34, line 18, leave out from 'is' to end of line 21 and insert
	'held for the purposes of functions relating to social security
	(a) by the Secretary of State, or
	(b) by a person providing services to the Secretary of State in connection with the provision of those services.'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 62
	  
	Information: supply by public bodies

Amendment made: No. 111, page 35, line 17, at end insert
	'( ) a provider of probation services,'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 63
	  
	Supplementary

Amendment made: No. 112, page 35, line 30, at end insert
	'proprietor, in relation to a school or other institution, means the person or body of persons responsible for its management;'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 133
	  
	Powers of National Assembly for Wales

Amendments made: No. 113, page 74, line 26, leave out from 'of' to end of line 27 and insert
	'(a) schools that are not maintained by local education authorities;
	(b) relevant independent educational institutions.'.
	No. 114, page 74, line 29, leave out from 'schools' to end of line 30.
	No. 115, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert
	'(zb) relevant independent educational institutions;.'.
	No. 116, line 34, leave out from 'matter,' to end of line 35 and insert 'for paragraph (b) substitute
	(b) pre-16 education or training, or post-16 education or training, provided otherwise than by institutions within paragraphs (za) to (a);.'.
	No. 117, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert
	'( ) In matter 5.16 for , any of the kinds of education, training or services mentioned in matter 5.15. substitute 
	(a) pre-16 education or training;
	(b) post-16 education or training;
	(c) the training of teachers and specialist teaching assistants for schools;
	(d) services of the kinds mentioned in matter 5.8.'.
	No. 118, line 36, at end insert
	'( ) After the definition of post-16 training insert
	pre-16 education or training means education or training suitable to the requirements of persons who are of or below compulsory school age.
	relevant independent educational institution means an institution other than a school which
	(e) provides part-time education for one or more persons of compulsory school age (part-time students) whether or not it also provides full-time education for any person, and(f) would be an independent school but for the fact that the education provided for the part-time student or students is part-time rather than full-time.
	For the purposes of the above definition of relevant independent educational institution, an institution provides part-time education for a person if
	(a) it provides education for the person, and
	(b) the education does not amount to full-time education.'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 134
	  
	Sixth form admissions etc

Amendment made: No. 119, page 76, line 4, leave out subsection (5). [Jim Knight.]

Clause 135
	  
	Sixth form admissions etc: appeals

Amendments made: No. 120, page 77, line 23, leave out from 'decision' to 'for' in line 25 and insert 'about sixth form education'.
	No. 121, page 77, line 34, leave out from 'decision' to first 'for' in line 36 and insert
	'about sixth form education for the child,'.
	No. 122, line 38, at end insert
	'( ) After subsection (6) insert
	(6A) In this section, any reference to a decision about sixth form education for a child is a reference to a decision
	(a) made in relation to a preference expressed in accordance with arrangements made under section 86A(1) as to where education should be provided for the child, or
	(b) refusing permission for the child to enter the sixth form of the school to which he has been admitted. '. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 147
	  
	Functions to be exercisable by Welsh Ministers

Amendment made: No. 123, page 86, line 10, at end insert
	'( ) Nothing in Schedule 1 or 2, so far as relating to the substitution of references to the Welsh Ministers for references to the Secretary of State in sections 89 to 90 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31), is to be taken to affect the application of those sections, or anything done under or for the purposes of those sections, in relation to Wales.'. [Jim Knight.]

Clause 153
	  
	Commencement

Amendments made: No. 125, page 87, line 38, leave out from '65' to end of line 40.
	No. 126, page 88, line 3, leave out paragraph (f) and insert
	'( ) paragraphs 62 to 64 and 66 of Schedule 1 (and section 149 so far as relating to those paragraphs);
	( ) the repeal in Schedule 2 relating to section 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (and section 149 so far as relating to that repeal).'.
	No. 127, page 88, line 4, leave out 'Sections 133 and 144' and insert 'The following provisions'.
	No. 128, page 88, line 5, at end insert
	'(a) section 133;
	(b) section [Admission arrangements](1) and (4), so far as relating to sections 88P and 88Q of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31);
	(c) section 144.'. [Jim Knight.]

Schedule 1
	  
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 129, page 92, line 9, at end insert
	'(1) Section 548 (no right to give corporal punishment) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)
	(a) in paragraph (a), for school substitute relevant educational institution;
	(b) in paragraphs (b) and (c), for school substitute a relevant educational institution.
	(3) In subsection (2) for school substitute relevant educational institution.
	(4) In subsection (6)
	(a) in paragraph (a) for school substitute relevant educational institution;
	(b) in paragraph (b)(i) for school substitute institution.
	(5) After subsection (7) insert
	(7A) Relevant educational institution means
	(a) a school, or
	(b) an independent educational institution in England other than a school.
	(7B) In subsection (7A)(b) independent educational institution has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (see section 77 of that Act).'.
	No. 130, page 97, line 26, at end insert
	 'Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)
	In section 177(1A) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (allowances: supplementary provisions), after paragraph (c) insert and
	(d) regulations made by virtue of section 42(4) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (allowances for attendance panels). '.
	No. 131, page 98, line 38, at end insert
	' In section 439 (school attendance: specification of schools), in subsection (2), after section insert 88C or.'.
	No. 132, page 99, line 32, at end insert
	'In subsection (5), after section insert 88C or.
	In subsection (5A)
	(a) after under section insert 88C or;
	(b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 89A(2) substitute section 88D(2)(a) and (b) or 89A(2)(a) and (b).
	In subsection (5B)(a) and (b), after section insert 88C or.'.
	No. 133, page 99, line 38, at end insert
	' After section 88Q (inserted by section [Admission arrangements]) insert
	 Admission arrangements: Wales
	88R Prohibition on interviews
	(1) No admission arrangements for a maintained school in Wales may require or authorise any interview with an applicant for admission to the school or his parents, where the interview is to be taken into account (to any extent) in determining whether the applicant is to be admitted to the school.
	(2) If the maintained school is one at which boarding accommodation is provided for pupils, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any interview intended to assess the suitability of an applicant for a boarding place.
	(3) Where the admission arrangements for a maintained school in Wales make provision for a permitted form of selection by aptitude, subsection (1) does not prevent the arrangements from requiring or authorising any audition or other oral or practical test to be carried out in relation to an applicant solely for the purpose of ascertaining the applicant's aptitude in accordance with the arrangements.
	(4) In this section permitted form of selection by aptitude is to be read in accordance with section 99(4). '.
	No. 134, page 99, line 39, leave out paragraph 58 and insert
	'(1) Section 89 (procedure for determining admission arrangements) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after maintained school insert in Wales.
	(3) Omit subsections (1ZA) and (1A).
	(4) In subsection (5), for the adjudicator substitute the Welsh Ministers.
	(5) In subsection (6)
	(a) for The adjudicator substitute The Welsh Ministers;
	(b) for he determines substitute they determine;
	(c) for he may determine substitute they may determine;
	(d) in paragraph (a), for his substitute their.
	(6) Omit subsection (7).
	(7) In subsection (8)(g), for the Secretary of State considers substitute the Welsh Ministers consider.
	(8) In subsection (10) omit paragraph (b).
	(1) Section 89A (determination of admission numbers) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after maintained school insert in Wales.
	(3) In subsection (3), after maintained school insert in Wales.'.
	No. 135, page 100, line 1, leave out 'In section' and insert
	'(1) Section'.
	No. 136, page 180, line 1, leave out 'after' and insert 'is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after authority insert in Wales.
	(3) In subsection (2)
	(a) for the Secretary of State substitute the Welsh Ministers;
	(b) after authority insert in Wales.
	(4) In subsection (3)(b)
	(a) for the Secretary of State substitute the Welsh Ministers;
	(b) for him substitute them.
	(5) In subsection (4)
	(a) for The Secretary of State substitute The Welsh Ministers;
	(b) after authorities in the first place in which it occurs, insert in Wales;
	(c) for them substitute such other authorities.
	(6) In subsection (5)
	(a) in paragraph (a), after authority in the first place in which it occurs insert in Wales;
	(b) in paragraph (b), after maintained school insert in Wales.
	(7) After'.
	No. 137, page 100, line 4, after 'schools' insert 'in Wales'.
	No. 138, page 100, line 9, at end insert
	' (1) Section 89C (further provision about schemes adopted or made by virtue of section 89B) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)
	(a) in paragraph (a), after local education authorities insert in Wales;
	(b) in paragraph (b), after maintained schools insert in Wales.
	(3) In subsection (2)
	(a) after local education authority in the first place where it occurs, insert in Wales, and
	(b) after maintained school insert in Wales.
	(4) In subsections (3) and (3A), after a maintained school insert in Wales.
	(5) In subsections (6) and (7), for the Secretary of State in each place substitute the Welsh Ministers.
	Omit section 89D (power to restrict alteration of admission arrangements following establishment or expansion).
	(1) Section 90 (reference of objections to adjudicator or Secretary of State) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the title, for adjudicator or Secretary of State substitute Welsh Ministers.
	(3) In subsections (1) and (2), for the adjudicator substitute the Welsh Ministers.
	(4) After subsection (2) insert
	(2A) Where any objection is referred to the Welsh Ministers, they shall decide whether, and (if so) to what extent, the objection should be upheld.
	(5) Omit subsections (3) to (5).
	(6) In subsection (5A)
	(a) for the adjudicator or the Secretary of State is substitute the Welsh Ministers are;
	(b) for subsection (3)(a) or (b) or (5)(c) substitute (2A);
	(c) for he (in both places) substitute they.
	(7) In subsection (5B)
	(a) for him substitute them;
	(b) for the adjudicator or the Secretary of State (as the case may be) substitute the Welsh Ministers;
	(c) in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d), for his substitute their;
	(d) in paragraph (b) for he has substitute they have;
	(e) omit paragraph (c);
	(f) in paragraph (d), for to (c) substitute and (b).
	(8) In subsection (5C)
	(a) for the adjudicator or the Secretary of State (as the case may be) decides substitute the Welsh Ministers decide;
	(b) for his substitute their.
	(9) In subsection (8)
	(a) for the adjudicator or the Secretary of State (in both places) substitute the Welsh Ministers;
	(b) for has substitute have.
	(10) In subsection (9)
	(a) in paragraph (a)
	(i) for the adjudicator or the Secretary of State (in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii)) substitute the Welsh Ministers;
	(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), for is substitute are and for him substitute them;
	(b) in paragraph (b), for the adjudicator or the Secretary of State substitute the Welsh Ministers;
	(c) omit paragraph (ba);
	(d) in paragraphs (e) and (f), for the adjudicator or the Secretary of State substitute the Welsh Ministers.
	(11) In subsection (11), omit paragraph (b).
	After section 90 insert
	90ZA Regulations by Welsh Ministers under sections 89 to 90
	In sections 89 to 90
	prescribed means prescribed by regulations made by the Welsh Ministers;
	regulations means regulations made by the Welsh Ministers.
	Omit section 90A (restrictions on alteration of admission arrangements following adjudicator's decision).
	Before section 92 insert
	 Publication of information about admissions: England and Wales '.
	No. 139, page 100, line 18, at end insert
	' (1) Section 98 (admission for nursery education or to nursery or special school: children with statements of special educational needs) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)
	(a) in paragraph (a), after section insert 88C or;
	(b) in paragraph (b), after section insert 88D or.
	(3) In subsection (9)(b), after section insert 88C or.
	In section 103 (permitted selection: introduction, variation or abandonment of provision for such selection), in subsection (1), after sections insert 88C to 88K or, as the case may be,.
	In section 108 (implementation of decision that school should cease to have selective admission arrangements), in subsection (2), after sections insert 88C to 88K or, as the case may be,.'.
	No. 140, page 100, line 18, at end insert
	After section 138 insert
	138A Regulations made by Welsh Ministers under sections 89 to 90
	(1) Any power of the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under sections 89 to 90 shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(2) A statutory instrument containing any such regulations made by the Welsh Ministers shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
	(3) Any such regulations may make different provision for different cases, circumstances or areas and may contain such incidental, supplemental, saving or transitional provisions as the Welsh Ministers think fit.
	In section 142(1) (general interpretation)
	(a) in the definition of prescribed, after prescribed insert (except in sections 89 to 90);
	(b) in the definition of regulations, after regulations insert (except in sections 89 to 90).
	(1) Section 143 (index) is amended as follows.
	(2) For the entry relating to prescribed substitute
	
		
			 prescribed  
			(generally) section 142(1) 
			(in sections 89 to 90) section 90ZA. 
		
	
	(3) For the entry relating to regulations substitute
	
		
			 regulations  
			(generally) section 142(1) 
			(in sections 89 to 90) section 90ZA.'. 
		
	
	No. 141, page 100, line 41, at end insert
	 'Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21)
	Omit paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21) (provision of information by HMRC for education purposes).'.
	No. 142, page 100, line 5, at end insert
	 'Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)
	In section 21 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) (positions of trust), in subsection (7), for paragraph (b) substitute
	(b) section 54, 56(1)(b) or 59 of the Education and Skills Act 2008,.
	 Children Act 2004 (c. 31)
	The Children Act 2004 (c. 31) is amended as follows.
	In section 10 (co-operation to improve well-being), in subsection (4)(f), for under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) substitute in pursuance of section 54 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.
	In section 11 (arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare), in subsection (1)(m), for under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) substitute in pursuance of section 59 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.
	In section 13(3)(g) (Local Safeguarding Children's Boards), for under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) substitute in pursuance of section 54 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.'.
	No. 143, page 100, line 13, at end insert
	 'Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (c. 47)
	In section 21 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (c. 47) (controlled activity relating to children), in subsection (6)(b), for section 117(1) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) substitute section 57 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 relating to children.'. [Jim Knight.]

Schedule 2
	  
	Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: No. 144, page 101, line 16, at end insert
	
		
			 'Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) In section 177(1A), the word and preceding paragraph (c).'. 
		
	
	No. 145, page 101, line 30, at end insert
	
		
			  'In section 89 
			  (a) subsections (1ZA), (1A) and (7), and 
			  (b) in subsection (10), paragraph (b) and the word and preceding it. 
			  Section 89D. 
			  In section 90 
			  (a) subsections (3) to (5), 
			  (b) in subsection (5B), paragraph (c) (but not the word and following it), 
			  (c) subsection (9)(ba), and 
			  (d) in subsection (11), paragraph (b) and the word and preceding it. 
			  Section 90A.'. 
		
	
	No. 146, page 101, line 38, at end insert
	
		
			 'Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21) In Schedule 5, paragraph 10.'. 
		
	
	No. 147, page 102, line 34, at end insert
	
		
			  'Section 106.'. 
		
	
	No. 148, page 102, line 38, in column 2, at beginning insert
	
		
			  'Section 46. 
			  Section 47(5)(a). 
			  Section 50(3). 
			  Section 52(2).'.[ Jim Knight.] 
		
	
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This landmark Bill has rightly benefited from considerable and enthusiastic debate in Committee and today on Report. I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their considered and largely informed scrutiny of the Bill's contents. The debate has ranged far and wide, from Proust to the origins of Liberalism to the inevitable discussion of the intricacies of legal drafting. This evening, we discussed the difference between aptitude and ability. If it helps the House to define the difference, we saw that although the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has the aptitude to deliver clever parliamentary rhetoric, it is doubtful that he has the ability to run the country.
	The Bill is about ensuring that the young people of today do not find themselves in search of lost time when they reach adulthood, that they do not look back on their youth and their education as a wasted opportunity, and that they do not find themselves without the skills, training and prospects to secure for themselves a satisfying and fulfilling job in their chosen career. The Government have made considerable progress in removing the historical glass ceiling on aspiration and achievement for the most disadvantaged young people in our society.

Philip Davies: Although new clause 16 was not reached, will the Minister confirm that, were the Bill to be given a Third Reading, the Government would still consider providing statutory support for orphans such as Kirsty Oldfield in my constituency? Ministers have shown a great deal of interest in her case, for which she is very grateful. Could such a provision still be introduced at this late hour, perhaps by an amendment in the House of Lords?

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman has raised the case of Kirsty Oldfield in the House on several occasions, and we are considering it. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would be happy to meet him to discuss how we might be able to take forward the concerns that he raised through the new clause that he was unable to move on Report.
	Having said that we have made considerable progress, it is also fair to say that we need to do more to ensure that individuals get the skills that they need to succeed, that employers get people with the training most useful to them, and that Britain is equipped with a world-class work force. Under the current system, out of a typical class of 30 year 6 children, 24 will progress to secondary school after success at key stage 2, 18 will go on to get five high-level GCSEs, and six will progress to university with more to follow after their gap year adventures. The rest, however, will either be stuck in a dead-end job without skills, training or prospects or will have dropped out of the system entirely. We cannot let that happenit is a social injustice and an economic imperative.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight: In a second.
	By raising participation in education, employment or training to the age of 18, everyone will have a fair chance of success. We are supporting that with a broader set of reforms, which I will set out when I have taken the intervention by my near neighbour from Bournemouth.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister. The concern that I raised during the important debate on Second Reading was that the Bill will encourage, or indeed oblige, disruptive students to stay in schooling when perhaps they need to move on and find and excel in other areas. As we reach Third Reading, will the Minister explain how the Bill will alleviate the concerns expressed by teachers in Bournemouth who will perhaps see disruptive students forced or encouraged to stay on when really they should be looking at some form of employment or apprenticeship? We need to recognise

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are meant to be brief.

Jim Knight: I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to explain to the teachers in his constituency what the Bill actually says, which is that no one will be forced to stay at school. We are not proposing raising the school age at all. We are saying that simply doing nothing between the ages of 16 and 18 is not an option, but there will be a whole range of provision that is appropriate for those young people.

Tobias Ellwood: rose

Jim Knight: I will not take any more interventions because I need to leave time for others to take part in this short Third Reading debate.
	We are supporting our aims with broader reforms that will open up new learning pathways, improve access to existing ones, and give young people a firm grounding in the basics and the specialist training that they need to succeed. We are providing a sharp focus on functional skillsEnglish, maths and information, communications and technologyin every qualification at every level. The new 14 to 19 diplomas, the first of which starts this September, will combine traditional and applied learning across a broad range of subjects. There will be more opportunities for adults to continue in learning and to gain the basic skills to help them to progress. We are seeing more engagement from employers, who are offering an additional 90,000 apprenticeships by 2013.
	With a broader choice of options, young people will be able to select a career path that plays to their strengths, makes the most of their talents and gives them the skills that employers want and young people need to succeed. Those currently in year 6 will be the first to feel the benefits of this legislationfrom year 6 to their 60s, when they retire after a long and satisfying career. I want to set the stage for this country to become a world leader in skills for the next 60 years and beyond. No one will be left out and no one will be left behind.
	To those who suggest an entitlement rather than compulsion, I say that 16 and 17-year-olds already have an entitlement to learning through the duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure appropriate provision for them. We need to go further and we must go further. To those who suggest that some young people or groups of young people should be exempt from the duty, I say that that would mean that we would be failing those young people. That is not acceptable.
	The case is very clear. This Third Reading is the chance for Opposition Members to come off the fence on the principle of the Bill, rather than sit on the Benches without stating an opinion. Opposition Members either support ambition, aspiration and achievement or they do not. They either support fair access to education for all or they do not. They either want to secure a strong and prosperous future for our young people and our economy, or they do not. This Bill will ensure that young people have opportunities, take them and are in a better position to create their own so that their education is not time lost but the chance to build a brighter future.
	The Government are making the difficult decisions to raise ambition and aspiration for all. Now is the time for the Conservatives to show their mettle and support usto move from excellence for some to our agenda of excellence for all. I am pleased to commend this Bill to the House.

Nick Gibb: It has been a fascinating five months as this Bill has hurtled its way through the House. I would like to add my thanks to the Clerks and officials and to the two Chairmen who chaired our proceedings, the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). I would particularly like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), whose dogged pursuit of literacy and numeracy as the key to raising participation rates had an important and powerful influence on the Committee. I would also like to thank the two Ministers for the courtesy that they showed throughout the Committee. Finally, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for sharing the burden of scrutinising the Bill and for his erudition and knowledge of William Morris during the Bill's passage through Committee.

Jim Knight: I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I just wanted to endorse his thanks to all the people that he mentioned, particularly himself and his fellow shadow Ministers who served on the Committee, the Chairmen and my fellow Ministersespecially some who had to spend a lot of time in the middle of paternity leave doing a lot of work and listening to me and who were very supportive throughout the whole process.

Nick Gibb: The Conservative party believes strongly in the goal of higher rates of participation in education and training to the age of 18. Not only do we believe in it, we are passionate about it. High-quality education is the key to prosperity and the route out of poverty, and, conversely, poor quality schools are a life sentence to unfulfilled lives and low levels of social mobility. The Government are right to have an objective of raising participation age and their aspiration that 100 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds should stay in education until the age of 18 is right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said on Second Reading:
	We believe that getting more young people to participate fruitfully in education for longerand not just to age 18is an unalloyed good.[ Official Report, 14 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 668.]
	The Government are right to be worried about the fact that only 77 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds stay on in education to 18, which puts this country in a lamentable 19th position in the league table of participation rates in developed countries. That figure is a serious problem for this country in an open, global economy where knowledge and expertise are the keys to innovation and vital to ensuring market share and national prosperity. Such a low staying-on rate is a symptom of deeper problems in our education system. The approach of passing a law to make it a criminal offence to leave education or training before the age of 18 is an attempt to tackle the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause.
	Today, 53 per cent. of 16-year-olds leave compulsory education without having achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including in English and maths. Yet I know of several comprehensive schools that have a truly comprehensive intake of a range of abilities, where 96 per cent. achieve five or more GCSEs at A* to C, including English and maths. Maths specialists tell us that almost every 15 and 16-year-old, apart from those with specific learning difficulties, is capable of achieving at least a grade C in GCSE maths. Why is that not happening?
	One in five 11-year-olds leave primary schools unable to read effectively despite seven years of primary education. Forty per cent. start secondary school without achieving a level in reading, writing and maths combined that would enable them to benefit from secondary education. That is the source of the 23 per cent. who do not stay on in education or training until the age of 16, of the 500,000 persistent truants and of the 40 per cent. who fail to achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C.
	Ministers say that the purpose of compulsion is to tackle the stubborn final 10 per cent. and raise participation from 90 per cent. to 100 per cent. However, we are still a long way from 90 per cent. We have a staying-on rate of only 77 per cent. and the disaffection that leads to 23 per cent. dropping out at 16 has the same causes as that of the final 10 per cent. We simply do not believe that criminalising the 10 per cent. will achieve any higher educational attainment for that group.
	The Government commissioned research into the international experience of introducing compulsion. The National Foundation for Educational Research concluded:
	There was little or no evidence of the likely impact of introducing a system of compulsory education or training to the age of 18.
	That conclusion is supported by charities that specialise in helping especially vulnerable 16 and 17-year-oldsthe group that the Bill aims to help.
	Nigel Haynes, chief executive of Fairbridge, which works with young people who have deep-seated problems, said in his evidence to the Committee:
	what evidence is there that compulsion has an effect? With the young people we deal with, the fact that they come because they want to and stay because they want to is a stronger motivation for change. [Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2008; c. 193, Q445.]
	Martina Milburn of the Prince's Trust said:
	We have great concerns about compulsion. If we are looking at the experience of the Prince's Trust with the young people on our programmes... the bulk of those young people came through a voluntary programme. [Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 16, Q34.]
	The NUT stated in written evidence:
	The NUT is concerned that the focus in the Bill on sanctions and criminalisation for failing to participate may be counter-productive. [Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2008; c. 315.]
	Alison Wolf has been cited frequently in the debate. She raised concerns about the effect of compulsion on the labour market and the employment prospects for 16 and 17-year-olds, especially given the legal duties that the Bill imposes on employers. She said that
	the negative impact that the Bill will have by effectively destroying the labour market for 16 and 17-year-olds is enormously underestimated. [Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 107, Q272.]
	The Government should examine the causes of the problem to determine why so many people are so disaffected with our education system that more leave school at 16 without going on to further education in this country than in most developed countries. As the Children's Rights Alliance stated:
	Young people who leave education at 16 do so because they have a history of unsatisfactory experiences in the education system, or because they have issues in their lives.
	That does not mean that those young people are not entitled to an academic secondary education. It means that they went to one of the 49 per cent. of schools that Ofsted categorises as not good enough, orworsethey attended one of the 638 failing secondary schools, or they started secondary education with a reading age of nine or lower, or they went to a secondary school where behaviour was out of control and the prevailing ethos was one in which being seen to work and study hard was to be uncool and an invitation to be bullied.
	Two weeks ago, I visited a secondary school where more than half the intake had a reading age of nine or below. That is unacceptable. No child should leave primary school with such poor reading skills. Reading is a low level skill, which every child, whatever their ability, should have mastered in the first years of primary school.
	As Alison Wolf said in her paper, Diminished Returns:
	One of the best-established findings in educational research is that children who are behind when they leave primary school find it almost impossible to catch up... With very few exceptions, children who are performing well at age 11 do not, at age 17 or 18, figure as NEETs.
	That is of course true. Nothing demotivates a person more than not being able to do something that they are meant to be able to do.
	Starting secondary school still unable to read properly and with ease is bound to lead to five more years of disaffection with education. That is why we intend to introduce a screening testa simple, standardised reading testat the end of the second year of primary education, to ensure that every child can decode words effortlessly, including false words. For too many decades we have allowed millions of children to emerge without having mastered the basic skills of reading. That is no longer acceptable to the Government, the public or our party. Tom Wilson of the TUC told the Public Bill Committee:
	A lot of working people feel very angry that the system has let them down and that they have gone through 10 years of school and emerged unable to read or write. [Official Report, Education and Skills Bill Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 52, Q132.]
	They are right to be angry. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)I do not know whether I should mention him, but I havewas right to conclude his speech on Second Reading thus:
	My plea is for the group whom we are failing most...they are in no way damaged...They are very bright. The question is: why, when they are so bright, do we fail them so dismally?[ Official Report, 14 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 705-06.]
	We need to ensure that our education system uses teaching methods and the curriculum that the evidence demonstrates are most effective and that are not based simply on a fad or someone's assertion. The decades-long ideological experiment of look-and-say and real books has been deeply damaging to millions of children, particularly those from the poorest backgrounds. That, combined with mixed-ability teaching in secondary schools and a culture of low expectations in too many inner-city schools, has left this country with one of the lowest participation rates in the developed world. Tackling that issue lies at the core of raising participation, rather than introducing a Bill that criminalises the young people whom our education system has let down, threatens the youth labour market and burdens colleges and local authorities with new costs. Organisations that work with the most vulnerable young people say that the Bill and the concept of compulsion will simply not work.

David Chaytor: I commend the Government for getting the Bill on to the statute book. It is a landmark Bill, in exactly the same way that the raising of the school-leaving age in 1972 from 15 to 16 was a landmark piece of legislation.
	To those who argue against compulsion, I simply say this: do they honestly think that if the 1972 legislation had not put a legal requirement on parents to send their children to school until the age of 16, we would have witnessed the progress that has been achieved since then? It is manifestly obvious that there must be a legal sanction if we want to increase the participation age. However, that does not mean that the legal sanction is the centrepiece of the Government's means of increasing the participation age.
	The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) is absolutely right that the root cause of our comparatively low level of post-16 participation lies firmly in weaknesses earlier in the education system, and in some aspects of secondary education in particular. However, I return to the point that we touched on in the debate on the first group of amendments on Report. He and his party remain in a state of denial about the relationship between school admissions policies and the capacity of individual schools to perform well and do the best for their children.
	Some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman described are the legacy of admissions systems based on selection by ability, explicitly or implicitly, and many forms of quasi-selection, which leave large numbers of young people demoralised and demotivated, because they know at an early age that they have been deselected. That is one of the root causes of alienation in the secondary stage of education, and low self-esteem and demotivation at the age of 16, which result in Britain having one of the lowest post-16 participation rates of any country in the OECD.
	I commend the Government for the progress that they are making on fair admissions to our secondary schools. The Bill will bring about significant changes as the years go by. However, the longer we put off tackling the fundamental issue of selection by ability, which is the cause of our hierarchical secondary school system, the more difficult it will be to expand the numbers of young people wishing voluntarily to stay on beyond the age of 16. We want a generation of young people who enjoy school, who have high self-esteem and self-confidence and who are able to follow a curriculum that is relevant and tailored to their interests. The Government's curriculum reforms for 14 to 19-year-olds are absolutely central to this aim.
	I want briefly to touch on two other points, which have not been mentioned in the debate so far. The first is transport. I want to say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, sooner or later, the House will have to look far more seriously at the question of concessionary travel for all young people. The changes proposed in the Bill will bring about a significant increase in demand for public transport. They will require more young people to travel further and in many more different directions in the course of a week than ever before. In the context of the national debate about climate change, congestion charging and the cost of transport, the Government will need to build on the success of the national concessionary fare scheme for pensioners. They must now start to do serious work on a national concessionary fare scheme for young people, because that will be the key to ensuring that the fairly complex arrangements envisaged by the Bill are successful.
	Finally, now that we have a 14 to 19 curriculum and a 14 to 19 phase of education, and now that we expect to see far more young people continuing beyond the age of 16, is it not absolutely logical that we need fair funding across the 14 to 19 phase? We can no longer justify the differential funding between school sixth forms, colleges and workplace training. Perhaps the Minister will say a few words about that when he winds up the debate.

David Laws: I should like to echo the thanks given by the Front-Bench spokesmen for the Government and the Conservatives to all those in front of and behind the scenes who have helped with the scrutiny of the Bill over the past few months. It will be clear by now to all those who have taken part in the debates that there are fundamental differences of approach and philosophy in tackling this problem. On my side of the House, the emphasis has been on tackling the problems that cause many young people to leave the education system at 16 or even before. We have not yet focused on the fact that there are many young people aged 14 and 15 who should, by law, be in education but who are not, or on the fact that the existing laws are not very effective at keeping them in the system.
	In our debates, we have tried to focus not only on the ideological or philosophical gap between the Government, who believe in making it a criminal offence to be outside education at the ages of 16 and 17, and our emphasis on challenging inequalities of opportunity and ensuring that young people have the ability to go on beyond the age of 16. We have also tried to focus on some of the practical issues that we want addressed in order to be able to sign up to the practical effect of the Bill. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House share the aspiration that 16 and 17-year-olds should be either in education or employment, or in some other form of support if they are unable to be in education or employment. Very few Members would not want youngsters aged 16 or 17 to be in one of those settings.
	I want to raise a couple of points on which the Government have failed to satisfy us, and on which I hope the debates in another place will make some progress. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State was unwilling to incorporate into the Bill the provisions in new clauses 6 and 9 that would have made it clear that one of the options for young people, post-16, should be for them to be in some kind of supported setting that falls short of the formal education and training settings that the Government envisage in the Bill. I wonder whether the Government are more determined to reach a particular figure allowing them to say that every 16 or 17-year-old is in education and training than really to serve those young people's needs.
	We know, and I am sure the Minister would recognise, that there is a very small group of 16 or 17-year-olds who cannot easily engage in the type of education and training envisaged under the Bill. It would be sensible for the Government not to try to allow that eventuality to be dealt with in unspecified regulations or by urging local authorities and attendance panels to take some sort of flexible approach. This issue should be provided for directly in the Bill. It should be an option for local authorities to give young people with mental health problems or other health problems or who are alienated from the education system by the age of 16 the type of engagement that will bring them back into education while dealing with their underlying problems. I hope that the other place, which will look closely at this matter in its debates over the next few months, will seek to come back to this decision and include in the Bill the option to have not simply the inflexible education and training scenarios currently envisaged by the Government.
	The second issue that I hope the other place will return to in the months ahead is the treatment of young people who are in employment at the ages of 16 and 17. I am concerned, as are many hon. Members who participated in the debate, that the Bill could dissuade employers from offering young people aged 16 and 17 the job opportunities that often may be more relevant to those who have become disengaged from education and training in a formal setting. The risk is not only that those young people could lose out, but that we end up with a group of young people who do not engage in education and training, and who could be in employment but will not be because employers will be unwilling to take the risk on account of the enforcement measures in the Bill.
	I hope that the other place will be able to save this Bill, which is undoubtedly based on good aspirations, but is in danger, because of the process of legislation and the inflexibilities within the system, of becoming bad legislation, which would be bad for many of the young people affected by it.

Charles Walker: When I was elected to Parliament, I was told not to bring emotion to this place, but I have a list with me of 13 young boys killed in London since 1 January this year. It includes Jimmy Mizen, who was killed just a couple of days ago at the age of 16. Lyle Tulloch was 15; Amro Elbadawi, 14; and Devoe Roach, 17. These were young men killed by children and youngsterspeople who have made the wrong decision in their lives.
	I have a rage about the fact that that is going on, I really do. I was wondering about it, and I had this terrible thought. Why are people taking lives? I am so concerned that we have youngsters whose last thought before they go to sleep is, Who am I? and that the answer they get back is Nobody, I am nobody. Because nobody cares where they are going, who they are, what they have done or what their purpose in life is, they in turn do not care when they cause huge emotional disaster and tragedy by taking the life of someone's child.
	I hope that this Bill will reach out to some of those people who are lost to society and who make the wrong decisions. I hope that it will allow them to reconnect with society, to learn to read and write, to learn a skill, to remain in education and to have a job, someone who cares whether they turn up in the morning and a place to welcome them to work. Perhaps if they become part of our society, we will save lives in the long term. That is why this Bill is so important. It really is important. I know it has its flaws. We know in this place that it has flaws, but we must do something to stop the tragedies that are going on week in, week out, on our streets.
	We in this place, the people in the Press Gallery and the people watching this on televisionthe few out theremust all collectively say, No more. No more tragedies. We have to do something, and the Bill is a small step in the right direction. For that reason, I support it.

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) for making a powerful speech. It is a reminder of why education is so important and how it can change people's lives.
	My first question to the Minister is whether he will come back to the House to explain the impact of the Bill, should it become an Act, on teachers and schools where students are obliged to stay in education until the age of 18but it probably will not be him, or indeed other Labour Front Benchers, who will be in a position to respond, because it will be five years from now. That prompts the question whether we are getting into the situation that we have with the Liberal Democrats, in which this Government can make policy knowing that they will not be responsible for the consequence of that legislation when it comes into existence.  [Interruption.]
	The problem that I raised on Second Readingif Labour Front Benchers can contain themselvesis the impact of disruptive students on teaching and the classes that they remain in. Of course the 16-year-old faces some choices, but many students will decide that the easy option is to remain in school. If the Minister has spoken to teachers, he will be aware that there is a genuine concern that disruptive students will remain in classes and have an impact on the learning ability of those who are genuinely there to learn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, the big difference between the Conservative approach and Labour's is whether we incentivise students and pupils to remain in education or oblige them to remain in it. The fact that we face today is that half of teachers are choosing to leave the profession after five years. That is a horrific statistic. One of the principal reasons why they choose to leave is the disruptive nature of students.
	Hon. Members across the House share the idea that we want more students to gain from education, particularly when we look over our shoulder and see what is happening in France, Germany and other places throughout Europe, where the standards of education are very high. The competition is extremely tough, and we must do all we can to ensure that we give children the best chances.
	However, I repeat my concern: what will happen to those classes where students who genuinely want to learn face the prospect of sharing at least two years of their time in school with other students who want to tread waterwho are taking the easy option of remaining in school because they have already decided to give up and have decided that they do not want to learn, do not want a job, and want to live on the state? We have already failed them. They will have a knock-on impact on those who genuinely want to do something with their lives.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Immigration

[Relevant document: The Minutes of Evidence taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on Immigration and Human Rights, on 19th February, HC 357-i.]

Christopher Huhne: I beg to move,
	That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 321), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be disapproved.
	I want to make the case that the Home Office must start again. I shall argue that the rule changes will involve injustice to many individuals, including some child victims of trafficking, whom the Government are pledged to help. The changes will introduce automatic penalties for breaches of rules which, in the view of the Liberal Democrats, will prove to be counter-productivefar from saving official time, they will mean more appeals to the courts. The essential issue is whether people who breach entry rules, perhaps by making a mistake, or whose agents breach entry rules, must pay for that with an automaticI repeat, automaticban on the right to reapply for entry for at least a year and for up to 10 years, regardless of circumstances, regardless of fault, regardless of understanding. As far as I know, the Home Office has yet to win the plain English prize for Government forms.
	The Government say in their explanatory notes that this is about penalising deception, but deception implies that the officials concerned understand intention. One of the most difficult things to prove in any court of law is what is going on inside the defendant's head. It is certainly no more possible to infer from a potential immigrant's mistake on a form that he or she is deceiving people than it would be fair for me to accuse Home Office Ministers of deception every time their Department made a mistake. Of all Departments of State, surely the Home Officefound, only this week, to have the lowest capability level of any Departmentought to understand better than most the difference between an honest mistake and a deception.
	The proposed change is a serious matter, which will involve injustice and hardship. A mistake will lead to exclusion from this country for one year or more, which may mean separation from family, friends and, in some cases, employment. Imagine someone who has lived in this country for some years with a partner and children. He or she may have overstayed, and may now wish to regularise the stay. His adviser would now say Come clean, depart voluntarily and reapply on the basis of continuing family life, but he will be excluded for at least one year, and possibly up to 10 years if there has been any previous deception.
	What an extraordinary incentive for people to remain undercover and not to regularise. What an appalling prospect for a person's partner and child if he or she tells the truth and comes clean. What a potential infringement of the Human Rights Act, and of article 8 of the European convention on human rights on the right to family life. The Liberal Democrats are waiting eagerly to hear whether the Minister can make a concession on this, at the very least.
	The proposed change entirely contradicts the expressed desire of Government policy to be compassionate with victims of child trafficking, outlined by the Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), in a recent debate on the ratification of the international convention. During that debate, on 18 January, Members in all parties spoke eloquently of the need to tackle human trafficking, particularly child trafficking, and to stand up for its victims.
	On 19 February, in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Minister conceded that there might be a need for carve-outs to protect children and victims of human trafficking. The Children's Commissioner wrote to request that he include an
	exception for those who were under 18 at the time of the breach.
	However, the Minister replied that the concern over trafficked and asylum-seeking children had been answered by the concession that delayed the implementation of the changes until 1 October. That is plainly wrong. How does the concession help children brought here by traffickers, who will in future be subject to re-entry bans for varying lengths of time because they entered the country illegally, although they were effectively kidnapped? They are least likely to be able to afford their passage home, and may therefore be subject to more severe penalties.
	What will happen to a person who used to live in the United Kingdom with his or her parents? If the parents overstayed, or used deception in that person's application when he or she was a child, that child will not be able to come and study in the United Kingdom without being subject to a blanket re-entry ban for offences of which he or she is completely innocent. In the extraordinary, discretion-free world that the Government are creating, the sins of the parents, of people-traffickers or of the person who is trying to take a child away from danger to sanctuary in the UKalbeit illegallyare visited on the child. I cannot believe that that is what the Minister intended, and I urge him to amend the rules to exclude offences committed when the person concerned was under 18.
	Let me cite another case. Recently, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency told her officials not to be so silly when they were about to remove three students; the students had wrongly filled in their applications to extend their stay, and were branded overstayers. The lack of discretion in the new rules means that that second chance would now be entirely impossible. Indeed, the mistake may now also be viewed as deception and the students be banned from returning and completing their course, or from undertaking postgraduate studies. That is an arbitrary and extraordinary imposition, and a terrible way to make friends and influence people who may return to their countries and in due course become people of influence and position.
	This is likely not just to involve injustice and hardship, but to prove counter-productive in streamlining the immigration procedures. Of course, we can understand the Minister's logic. The Minister is a former management consultant; he understands these problems. Officials are human, and to err is human; therefore, officials err. It is an ineluctable logicalthough when it was first expounded I doubt that anyone had in mind the spectacular capacity for human error recently perfected by the Home Office. After all, such a large proportion of decisions are overturned on appealin asylum cases, for examplethat it must be intuitively appealing for discretion to be removed entirely from the process.
	This is immigration rulings by rote; there is no room in these rules for any discretion. It does not matter whether someone has overstayed by one day or 10 years, or whether they have made a typo on a form or they have used false documents. That rigidity and automaticity will not save official time, however. We Liberal Democrats contend that it will prove counter-productive because more and more cases will end up in the courts and there is no evidence that the UK Border Agency is capable of handling them because, extraordinarily, there was an abject failure on the part of Ministers to consult on these matters before tabling their proposals in February, and because, most bizarrely of all, the changes are regarded as too trivial to merit an impact assessment. Why then are Ministers coming to this House and undertaking such trivial changes, and failing to concentrate on serious matters that deserve their attention? If, as we contend, these matters are far from trivial, why is there no consultation and no impact assessment from either the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice, when the courts system may well have to bear the fall-out and sweep up the mess?
	The Government should withdraw these changes, at least until those assessments have been undertaken and they know what they are doing. At the very least, we need a provision for the exercise of discretion in cases of minor and inadvertent breaches and we need exceptions for children, people who have been trafficked and asylum seekers.
	I have attempted to show that the rules would lead to significant injustice. Children, who most need our protection, would be denied it and potential immigrants would be discouraged from regularising their position because it might mean, de facto, the break-up of their family and the loss of their job. Automaticity will not only prove to be a poor handmaiden of justice, but it will lead to increasing numbers of appeals against arbitrary and insensitive official decisions. We conclude that the measures will not even deliver a reduced burden on the officials concerned, who will find themselves increasingly often in court.
	For all those reasons, we beg to move that the measures be now disapproved.

Damian Green: The Government are evidently in some difficulties over this instrument, and the problems arise essentially from a lack of consultation. Their basic casethat there should be penalties that discourage people from staying here illegallyis a sound one, but the problem, as so often in this policy area, is a lack of sensitivity and an unwillingness to listen.
	There were the first signs of flexibility in the debate on this issue in another place when the Government spokesman in the House of Lords, Lord Bassam, made a welcome concession by, effectively, delaying the implementation of the changes before the House until October, so that those who are here illegally have the chance to leave the country without falling foul of these rules. He said:
	It is normally the practice that we would go through fairly rigorous consultation arrangements, but it is not always possible to consult everyone who might have an interest.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 March 2008; Vol. 700, c. 97.]
	Does the Minister agree that it might have been better to consult organisations such as the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Immigration Advisory Service, and other bodies, such as the Refugee Children's Consortium and Universities UK, which might well have had constructive and helpful suggestions to make? As far as I can see, he consulted absolutely nobody, which, in this context, seems a little foolish.
	I accept that the Government have to strike a balance. They are rightly charged with securing our borders and preventing abuse of our immigration system while ensuring that the system is fair to individuals. We are all aware that occasionally those two objectives sit uncomfortably with each other, but when concerns were raised in another place about those who have made mistakes on their applicationthe hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) has also made the pointLord Bassam said:
	The Government believe that the points-based system will provide an adequate remedy for migrants who have made mistakes in their application.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2007; Vol. 695, c. 996.]
	I hope that the Minister can tell us whether he is satisfied that adequate remedies are in place, because there seem to be some powerful arguments that they are not in place.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh made a number of points, and I, too, wish to deal with a range of questions that the Minister needs to answer. I wish to start with what is clearly both the most sensitive issue and the one on which the Government's case is weakest: the treatment of children. The whole House will agree that the issue of children in our immigration system needs to be handled carefully, and the Minister will know that those most involved with children's rights in this area have considerable concerns as to how the changes will impact on children.
	It is clear that children in the immigration system cannot be accountable or wholly responsible for their own application and that, in some cases, they are legally in the care of a responsible adult. I hope that the Minister will tell the House what will happen if a child's application contains false documents or statements made not by them, but by others. Will the Government treat that as deception? Will they bar such children from entering the UK even after they have become an adult?

Jeremy Corbyn: I support the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Is it also the case, as I understand it to be, that if the documents cannot be produced when the child is often much older than they were when they first arrived in this country, they would fall foul of this proposal and be threatened with removalor if they are removed, they would not be allowed to come back for five years?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and, again, I hope that the Minister can address it.
	Clearly, a number of detailed issues affect children, where, as I just said, the Minister's proposals are at their weakest. The Refugee Children's Consortium makes a large number of points, of which I shall just detail two. First, it says that
	any application for further leave must be refused if any false document has been submitted, or false statement has been made, or there has been any failure to disclose a relevant fact. Refusal is mandatory in these circumstances regardless of whether the applicant is aware of the falsity or omission.
	That is clearly an extremely tough test to pass. Secondly, it states:
	These changes make no distinction between refugees and other immigrants; nor between children and adults. The previous Rules made no explicit distinction, but by admitting discretion allowed decision-makers to have regard to the particular age and circumstances of applicants.
	Another related point is that everyone in the House has particular concern for the victims of human trafficking, so I hope that the Minister will frame his response also in terms of the effect of these changes on potential child trafficking victims who are, as we all know, victims of one of the fastest-growing and most repellent crimes in the modern world. I hope he will address the issue of children.
	Another area where questions need answering is cost recovery.

John Spellar: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he be clearhe has not really touched on thisabout whether he thinks there should be any penalties on those who are deported from this country in relation to having to wait a time before applying to come back?

Damian Green: Yes I do, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been listening he would know that I made that point quite explicitly at the start of my speech. I said that Governments have responsibility to protect our immigration system. It is late at night and I am happy to make things clear for him.
	In the explanatory notes to the statement of changes, the Government say:
	Where migrants have left the UK at public expense, we will also require them to repay the cost of their departure, once we have introduced primary legislation that allows us to do so.
	Will the Minister tell the House when the Government intend to introduce those proposals? Having removed someone from the country, how do the Government propose to recover that payment? What discussions have they had with foreign Governments about their co-operation in recovering costs from their own nationals? On the surface, the Government's aim of recovering costs from people who have already gone back to their own country looks extremely optimistic. I suspect that this part of the changes is somewhat unrealistic.
	Another issue, which the hon. Member for Eastleigh raised, is inadvertent mistakes. Clearly, nobody condones the intentional use of misleading or false information and those who use it should be subject to stringent penalties. We support the general approach that those who give false information should be refused entry, but will the Minister clarify what entry clearance officers will take the word false to mean? Does it mean intentionally false or inaccuracies of any kind? In short, does it involve active deceit? Is a mistake made in good faith also covered by these measures?
	The Minister will be aware that that issue was raised in another place by representatives of the universities. Perhaps students are particularly prone to making such mistakes, but whether they are or not, it is clear that full clarification will be important.
	It is also important to put these changes in the context of the wider weaknesses of the points-based system as it has been introduced by the Government. It is designed to do one job, which is to allow the economically beneficial to come to this country, but Ministers would like it to do another, which is to limit the numbers coming here. The scheme does not set limits of that sort and, as it is set up, it is not intended to do so. Ministers constantly argue that it is a system like Australia's, but they know that the Australian system is entirely different. It starts with a limit and selects within that total.
	Nor does the Government's points-based system prevent long-term settlement. By staying on for five years and making an application, all work permit holders will be qualified to apply for settlement in Britain and, later, for citizenship. That will apply whether or not their skills are needed beyond the short term.
	The result of those weaknesses in the system and the complete lack of public confidence in the Government's immigration record is that Ministers are at all times having to try to look as tough as possible. The result of that, as we see before us this evening, is too often self-defeating. We have seen that over the highly skilled migrants programme. The Minister will be aware of complaints from the restaurant sector and there are now complaints from those who employ seasonal workers. It is conceivable, indeed, that there might be objections from some people who are covered by the measure. The root of the problem is policy driven by rhetoric, which is never a happy prospect.
	I put it to the Minister that this is the day of the U-turn for the Government. I hope that he repeats the performance of the Chancellor this afternoon and introduces another set of U-turns and sensible concessions on this badly drafted measure.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this issue on 19 February, and I am not entirely sure that we saw eye to eye during that session. The first point that I put to him arose from the explanatory memorandum to the document laid on 6 February, which said in paragraph 8.1:
	An impact assessment on these changes will be published on the website of the Border and Immigration Agency...and on the Home Office website.
	When he came to give evidence, that impact assessment had not been published and he went away to check it. I do not think that it has been published yet. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the fact that we do not have that impact assessment is serious. Despite what we were told in the explanatory memorandum, no real thought has been given to the consequences of the rule changes for some vulnerable people.
	I am reminded of a couple of cases that I put to the Minister in Committee. I gave the example of a trafficking victim who is brought into the UK by deception, so her entry is illegal, but who manages to escape from the traffickers. As she has no money to return to her own country, she relies on the UK to pay for her return and is barred for 10 years because of the deception, or for five years because her return is paid for by the UK. The other example I gave was of a child fleeing persecution in his home country who is smuggled into the UK with the assistance of an agent, and who has no travel documentation so has entered the country illegally. The child has no funds of his own and is given discretionary leave, but when his asylum claim is ultimately decided, it is refused, perhaps because the circumstances in the home country have changed. Even if the child agrees to a voluntary return, he has no money to pay for it so either he is excluded for 10 years because of the deception in getting into the country or for five years because he cannot pay for his own return.
	Those are two examples of hard cases, and because there is no discretion in the system and it is based on mandatory refusals we end up with two pretty appalling cases. We have no special exemptions for children and trafficking victims, and so one would have thought that that sort of thing might be thrown up by the impact assessment, which has not been produced.
	It is irrelevant if the applicant believes that he had a good reason to believe that the statement was true or the document was genuine or valid, if the statement was made or the document submitted by a third party without the applicant's knowledge, if the applicant did not understand the relevant fact that needed to be disclosed and made an entirely innocent mistake, or if the false document or statement was totally irrelevant and immaterial to the application. None of those factors is taken into account. The refusals are absolutely mandatory, no matter how innocent of any wrongdoing the applicant might be.

Jeremy Corbyn: Before the idea of a mandatory rule came in, had my hon. Friend come across any evidence in his capacity as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee of the number of cases in which a decision had been overturned on appeal or on humanitarian grounds by the Minister's office?

Andrew Dismore: I must correct my hon. Friend. I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, not the Home Affairs Committee. I will not say whether he just offered me a promotion or a demotion. All of us who have high immigration case loads in our constituency offices will be aware of such problems. People make genuine mistakes and they end up being challenged. The point about these rules is that there is no incentive to put things right. The incentive would be to fight everything every step of the way as a consequence, because there is no benefit in trying to put things right.
	The real problem is that an employer might have submitted a false document, and the migrant might have no knowledge of it. The same could be true of an educational or financial institution. Any false statement by a third party damns the applicant, too. Children are affected in the same way, as I have just said. The child who overstays because the parent failed to renew their leave is caught by the mandatory rules. That is not fair on the child, who is still caught by the ban.
	The seriousness or otherwise of the breach makes no difference at all. The person who overstays by 29 days because they made a mistake with their visa date, or because their flight was delayed, is treated in exactly the same way as somebody who has overstayed for 10 years. That is not fair or right. Similarly, no discretion can be applied in the case of a student who works an extra hour beyond the 20 hours a week permitted. Some provision must be made for dealing with such hard cases. The consequence of mandatory rules is inevitably injustice. In this case, there is another by-product: cases will increasingly be fought tooth and nail, every step of the way, through the courts.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether some discretion could be used in cases involving children, trafficking victims, inadvertent mistakes or mistakes where there is no culpability whatever on the part of the migrant concerned. If we are serious about our international obligations to asylum seekers, about our obligations to victims of trafficking under the European convention that we are supposed to be signing by the end of the year, and about the convention on the rights of the child, which I hope we will sign by the end of the year, we have to make exceptions in such cases.

Simon Hughes: I think the Minister will be getting the message by now. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who speaks for the Conservative party on immigration, and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whose Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the matter at a very appropriate time, have made the strong general case that the rules that we are discussing, which were presented to Parliament without consultation, are clearly not justified. They would not only fail to remedy a mischief but would leave the system for dealing with people who want to come to this country properly far worse than it is now.
	I want to add two points about procedure. As the Minister will know, we have a ridiculous system, although I do not blame him personally for that. The changes to the immigration rules were published on 6 February. The Joint Committee met on 19 February to consider them. Hon. Members have 28 days in which to pray against rules and, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and other colleagues, we did so. That hopefully triggers a debate. However, some of the proposed changes came into force on 29 February, while the changes that we are concerned with tonight came into force on 1 April. From 1 April all the new rules were in place, even though we had not yet held the debate on whether they should be in place.
	The Leader of the House has accepted that the system is nonsensical. This is not a Home Office problem, but a general Government problem. We must change the system whereby important rules introduced under secondary legislation come into force before we have had the chance to debate them. If we had had the chance to debate them, the point about the absence of consultation, made by all three colleagues who have spoken so far tonight, would have been pre-eminently made, and Ministers would have said, We understand, and we'll reflect on those points.
	Happily, there was a debate in the House of Lords between 6 February, when the rules were laid before Parliament, and 1 April, when the changes that we are most concerned with today came into effect. The debate was initiated by my noble Friend Lord Avebury, and he was supported by my noble Friend the Liberal Democrat Lord Roberts of Llandudno. Anyone who reads that debateas the Minister, the hon. Member for Ashford and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh have clearly donewill see that it showed overwhelmingly that the situation is nonsensical. To his credit, the Minister in the Lords accepted that it was nonsense, and at the end of the debate he said that the rules in question would not come into force on 1 April; instead, their implementation would be deferred until October.
	Like friends and colleagues from all parts of the House, I deal with a huge number of immigration cases of the kind that we are discussing. It is not a record that I aspired to hold, but I think that I am currently at the top of the Home Office league table because of the number of cases that I have brought before it. Colleagues who are present, including the hon. Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for Hendon and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), also deal regularly with significant numbers of cases that would involve the rule that we are discussing.
	Let us be absolutely clear: the changes are misguided. If there was a breach of any of the rules, or if there was a failureit is set out in these terms in the proposed changesby overstaying, which could be by a day; by a breach of a condition, which could be one failure to report; by being an illegal entrant, which is obviously more serious but the applicant could have been as a child, brought as a relative, brought as a teenager, brought with somebody else, brought against their will, or brought not knowing what was happening; or by using deception in an application for entry clearance, whether the deception was theirs or was carried out on their behalf by an agent, by somebody whom their family had paid or whateverany of those circumstances would automatically lead to a series of blanket bans, depending on the circumstance of the person's departure.
	If the migrant leaves voluntarily, it might be a year before they can come back in any circumstance; five years if they left voluntarily at public expense and only if they had repaid the cost; 10 years if they were removed or deported; and 10 years if they used deceptionno questions, no qualification, no exemptions; a blanket ban. The case has been made as to why that is nonsense. To give the Minister some credit, his Department during his tenure as Immigration Minister and under all his predecessors from both the Labour and the Conservative parties since I have been in the House has always had a system whereby, as well as the immigration law and the rules, discretion has been available to the Home Office. That is normally exercised by officials and occasionally by Ministers, if the matter needs to go higher, so to speak. Officials regularly exercise that discretion because there is a good case, and so they should. Ministers occasionally do so, too.
	That is as it should be. The case for the changes to the rules would not be justifiable in human rights law, as the hon. Member for Hendon pointed out, on the basis of the right to family life or on non-discrimination, and the system would not be sustainable or tenable if discretion were not allowed as a remedy for the person who, for example, was due to leave on a certain day and whose flight was cancelled, or who was due to go and report and was taken seriously ill. There are all sorts of examples.
	In my office we were alerted to the issue pretty well immediately by people with whom we work, who represent immigrants and asylum seekers. They are highly respected companies and organisations, particularly the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. This had an immediate effect and rang alarm bells, hinted at by previous speakers. When I saw that Lord Bassam had agreed that there would be concessions until October, I advised everyone in my constituency who was likely to be affected to go immediately. I explained that if they went by October, there was a chance that they would benefit from the exemption and be allowed back in if they made an application.
	That was no different from the practice that I have adopted for years when people come to me. I have many Sierra Leoneans in my constituency. Let us suppose that one of them had married a Sierra Leonean who had indefinite leave to remain in the UK, or who had become British by nationality, but they did not have proper status, possibly because they had been a student and overstayed, or had come as a visitor and overstayed, or had a work permit and overstayed for whatever reason, and they thought that that would be valid. I have always said to them, The best way for you to deal with this is for you to go back to Sierra Leone now that there is peace and not civil war, and make a proper application. Provided everything is in order, provided you have somewhere secure to live, provided your partner or spouse is working, and provided you're not going to be dependent on the state, you would be given probably one year initially, then possibly a second year, and then you would be allowed to stay. They would do that.
	The effect of the changes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh suggested, is that those people would not say, Fine, Simon, that's what I'll do. They would say, Thank you very much, Mr. Hughes. I may not see you again, and if you see me in the street, don't tell anybody where I am. Let us be realistic about this. If somebody has married and has a child, or has a long-term relationship and has two children, or has just got engaged and is desperately in love with someone, they will not suddenly give that up, with the prospect of at least one year and possibly two, five or 10 years before they can come back. That is just not realistic.
	I was dealing with a case only the other day involving somebody whose children were in care in this country because there had been difficulties, but not the sort of difficulties that meant the family had given up links with them or that the children would not benefit from still having links with both parents. People make mistakes and want to put their lives right. There are all sorts of such cases in which people behave as anybody here in the Chamber would behave.

John Spellar: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there should be any differentiation between those who have completely abided by the rules and done everything properly and those who have not? Does he think that there should be no differentiation whatever?

Simon Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Ashford, I do not dissent from the notion that there should be a requirement to make up for the failure.

Christopher Huhne: But not automatically.

Simon Hughes: But not automatically, as my hon. Friend says. The failure might be accidental and unavoidable. It could happen to the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar): if he had been struck down with a serious illness and could not deal with the paperwork, one would hope for his sake and that of his family that compassion would be shown to him. I apply the same principles to immigrants as I would apply to people of this country in respect of any other administrative procedure. That must be the right way.
	Of course, there are already procedures for allowing people the opportunity to reimburse the fare. There are different policies depending on whether a person is sent back at public expense or whether they pay their way. I always encourage people to pay their own way; sometimes they need to borrow to do so. Of course I do that, because they need to be socially responsible and show that they are keen. Other things can also be done. There are perfectly proper ways of addressing the issue without there being any threat to the immigration system.
	It seems to me that the Government have accepted that they made a mess of the process, and that a process that we should not have in Parliament was used. They have made an initial concession. However, that will be flawed if it lasts for six months and then stops. Other cases will come to that point on 1 November and 30 November, and 1 December and 31 December, and so on. It would be a nonsense if some people coincidentally benefited from the concession and others did not.
	Like me, colleagues in the House will have been pursuing a constituent's case that has gone on for one, two, three or four yearsit may be an asylum case or another kind of case. In the end, the case might be decided in November, on the other side of the concession. It might be decided next year; there might be an appeal, or there might not. It is a nonsense for there to be a cut-off. The change has to be within a system and work for ever.
	I have two short last points. Under this proposal, when the final decision comes there are only 28 days for a person to get their life in order and go. The Home Office has been intelligent in the past; it has understood that if a person is from a country at civil war such as Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia or Sri Lanka, or is from a country where there is political persecution such as Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia or China, and if after one, two or seven years in this country that person is told that they have come to the end of the road, it will sometimes not be possible for them to sort out their whole life in 28 days. The Home Office normally shows sensitivity in such a situation. That has to remain, and it would be a nonsense if it did not.
	Lastly, if the Minister is minded to be helpfulI hope that he isI should be grateful if he looked at the issue of how families are defined. Families are not just the engaged or married couple, or formal civil partners; they are also people who have clearly been together for a very long time as partners. There can be other relationships, including between brother and sister, parent and child, and elderly parent and grandchild. I hope there can be an understanding that the right to family life in such circumstances is just as important as it is among a conventional nuclear family.
	I hope that the Minister can be helpful. If he can, I hope that in addition to any concession given in Lord Bassam's statement and any further concession that the Minister may be able to make, he will look at how we can come back to the issue in a consultative, formalised way so that in due course we get immigration rules that say what they mean and are workable, practicable and civilised. If we do that, it will be to the immigration service's credit and it will strengthen the service. If we do not, the service will be discredited. I am sorry that we have had to come this far before we begin to get, I hope, the sort of change that many thousands of families and, I am sure, many colleagues in the House hope that the Minister can deliver.

Jeremy Corbyn: I want to make a few points, but I will be very brief because I want to hear the Minister's reply to the debate. First, we are debating rules that came into operation several months ago and have caused a great deal of complication, hardship and confusion. Unless the Minister has some very good news for us, the rules will be approved in tomorrow's vote. That is not a very satisfactory system of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, and it seems to be a negation of the parliamentary process.
	Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister told us exactly who was consulted before these rule changes were brought in. I understand that very few people were consulted. Organisations dealing with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, children's charities and bodies such as the Immigration Law Practitioners Association would have had something helpful and useful to say, and we should be well aware of it.
	Thirdlythis follows on from the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)there is the question of discretion. That concerns me a great deal. I have been dealing with immigration cases since I was first elected to this House, and a very large number of them too. One has always known that there is a degree of discretion, either with an official or ultimately with a Minister. That is absolutely essential, because it is almost impossible to draw up rules relating to children seeking asylum or to immigration in general that can define every possible circumstance. Once the Minister throws discretion away, he is, in effect, getting it off his table and handing it over to immigration courts to decide, however perverse those decisions might be, and he will end up back here having to reform the rules or legislation to cope with that. It would be much better all round to keep that degree of discretion.
	Fourthly, I am very concerned about the penalty imposed on children for the circumstances under which they came to this country. My constituency, like that of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, has a considerable number of Somali people who sought a place of safety in this country because of the war in Somalia. There has been a war going on in Somalia for a very long time, and I suspect that sadly it will continue for a long time to come. I have encountered many people who arrived in this country as children and who cannot remember how they got here, do not know by what route they came, do not know who brought them, and do not know what documentation was involvedit was probably false, and they were probably smuggled, with a people-trafficker involved. There were probably some desperate parents somewhere back home in Somalia who just wanted to get their children to a place of safety. The priority should be at least to look after those children in that place of safety. My understanding of the rules that are being introduced is that if, at a later stage, it became apparent that the documentation was false or that people-traffickers were involved, the child would be penalised in some way. That simply cannot be right. The same applies to children coming from Congo or from very many other places. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me in that respect.

Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also have encountered youngsters who have come here legally and who have left their affairs behind to be dealt with by somebody on their behalf such as a relative or lawyers, or so-called lawyers, who have not done what they should have done, and they have subsequently discovered that their application was not made in time.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about what is, in reality, a kind of informal adoption. I was just about to come to that. Unfortunately, there are within the world of immigration law some extremely incompetent, inefficient and corrupt advisers who are no good or help to anybody, as well as a lot of very good and overworked immigration solicitors who have great difficulty in coping with their work loads and the pressures that are put on them. I have come across cases where children have come to this country, perhaps from Nigeria or Bangladeshfrom many different placesas quite young children, probably unaware of what was going on, and have been effectively adopted by an uncle or an aunt. I am not saying that there is anything bad about the uncle or aunt in question, who may often have looked after them and brought them up very well. That child came to this country to be with their adoptive parents; those parents either did not understand the system or did not do anything about it, and when the child reaches the age of 18 and becomes an adult, they apply for all the things that adults want and discover that they are not legally allowed to be in this country.
	I have had cases where 18 or 19-year-olds who have been all the way through the education system in this country are removed. Under the rules, they would be banned from even visiting again within five years because they had come here by what someone has decided is a process of deception. I can think of families where at one level it could be argued that there had been deception. I would argue that there is a huge degree of ignorance and that those families needed help and support. Above all, why are we penalising the young people in question? They are not the ones who created the deception or problem in the first place.

John Spellar: My hon. Friend outlines a number of cases. Can he explain why all those responsibilities should fall on the citizens of the United Kingdom?

Jeremy Corbyn: Because we are dealing with immigration law affecting people resident in this country, and, in the case of the young people I was talking about, people educated in this country who wish to make a contribution to its economic welfare and development. My right hon. Friend would do well to recognise that much of the wealth of this country comes from migrant labourpeople who have given a great deal to our society, from which we have all benefited and continue to benefit. I am sure that his constituency includes such people just as mine does.
	My last point follows the one made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey on family reunion or right-to-family-life issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. The problem seems to be an over-close definition of what a family is. We could argue that it is lots of things: the nuclear family of two parents and however many children, one parent and a child, informal adoptive parents, brothers and sisters, or a wider family unit. It is extremely difficult to define, and either it should be defined in a very general way, as the UN convention attempts to do, or officials and Ministers should retain a high degree of discretion so that we can avoid the often unbelievably hurtful situation where a family is broken up because one of them has not achieved citizenship or status in this country. In such situations, it is claimed that someone came here by some degree of deceptionthey may have come as a childand they are removed from this country, leading the family to suffer a great deal as a result.
	We have to be rather more humanitarian than we appear to be at the moment, and recognise that human beings are involved. The people involved want to live ordinary decent lives and make a contribution to our societyindeed, they do make a good, positive contribution to our society. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me with the concerns that I have expressed about the rules, which are shared by a large number of children's organisations in this country.

Fiona Mactaggart: I shall be brief. I was prompted to speak by the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who asked why British citizens should bear the burden of such responsibilities. The Minister, whom I thank for listening carefully to a series of representations that I have made about the rules, led me to write letters to 63 families in Slough, to which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) alluded. I had a look at the families who would have been affected by this proposal, and in a large proportion of cases the families involved a number of British citizens, and the British citizen in question was married to someone from overseas.
	I can think of one case about which I am still battling with the Home Office. A woman with five children who had been married for years was deemed not to be a wife, but was admitted as a fiance. That happened because the husband had been married previously and, ab initio, the marriage was determined to be bigamous in UK law, although, when the couple originally married, he was a Pakistani citizen. He is now a British citizen. She did not know that she had been admitted as a fianceshe thought that she had been admitted as a wife because she had been a wife for many years and had five children. When her six-month visa expired, she applied to the Home Office for indefinite leave to remain, and it replied, Sorry, no marriage certificate. She tried to book a wedding at Slough town hall and could not do it in the time left before her visa ran out. Shortly afterwards, she had her sixth child, and she is still here because the child is too young for her to return. In that case, I have not done what I usually doadvise people to go overseas and make an application from there to come back home, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey describedbecause her children need to be cared for.
	My concern about the rules is their effect on family life and article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Minister has listened carefully to my comments and I shall stop speaking soon because I hope that he will cheer us all up by saying that he recognises that the impact on British as well as long-resident families is unacceptable. The lack of confidence in the system created by that wee group of people, who happen to go overseas just before the period described in the other place as a concession and get refused but would not be refused two weeks later, is unreasonable. I hope that the Minister can tell us that those people whose applications were made before 1 April and refused after that date but would have fitted the concession will have their cases reconsidered.
	I also hope that the Minister can tell us that he intended people who disregard UK immigration law to face penalties, but that those people's families, who will be deprived of sometimes a breadwinner and always a loved one, should not pay those penalties. I look forward to his comments.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) for giving us the opportunity to hold the debate. I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). When we make changes such as those that we are discussing, it is important that a parliamentary process is involved. That is why there is an opportunity to pray against rules and have such debates. However, I also agree that it would be helpful in future to try to hold them before rather than after rules are introduced. The hon. Member for Eastleigh said that he had made representations to the Leader of the House. I shall check whether she has received them.
	I want to start with some context and then I shall rattle through my notes because I do not want to detain the House much longer. Hon. Members know that we are making one or two changes to the immigration and the border security systems in this country this year; the introduction of the points system is among the most significant. We had a rather good debate on the points system a week or two ago, when I hope that our intention to make the rules much simpler came across. We want to make them clearer and easier, not only for the Government to administer, thus reducing the room for mistakes that derive from 10 measures since 1971, but in order to reduce the space for bad immigration lawyers to take people for a ride. I agree with the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made about that. When there is a complicated system of rules, vulnerable migrants often get taken for a ride and end up paying quite a high price.

Karen Buck: Is not the point that people who are in this country, rather than people making an application to come through the points-based system, have messy and complicated lives? They have relationships, as my hon. Friends have described. It is impossible to create a rigid and mandatory structure for making such decisions that accommodates the complexity and difficulty of those lives. That is exactly why discretion must be retained in the system.

Liam Byrne: Yes and no. I agree with a large part of the sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses, and I will explain why shortly. None the less, sharp edges are sometimes required and sometimes we need to make rules clear so that people can understand them.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister is familiar with the point about immigration lawyers and advisers, which I have raised before. Is the Home Office making any progress on that, through communications with the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and recognised quality solicitors or action against advisers who take vulnerable people with no access to legal aid for a ride? They are often poor people who pay out hundreds if not thousands of pounds on nonsensical advice that only makes corrupt lawyers rich.

Liam Byrne: Progress is indeed being made on that. I know that the House will not necessarily welcome another Immigration Minister saying that he hopes to bring forward legislation, because that is said in the House quite often, but we hope to introduce a consolidating measure that will simplify, overhaul and clarify the 10 Acts that have been passed since 1971. As part of that, we will propose new action to try to drive out such abuse. However, let me move on to the substance of my remarks.
	As part of the changes that we are making through the introduction of the points system, we want to introduce a much clearer series of rules. That necessarily involves putting some boundaries on discretion, which can be exercised very subjectively. When people can take subjective decisions, as they can today, there is room for inconsistent decisions. That often means having to put in place an appeals process to try to regulate the system, which can introduce further complexity and cost, but sometimes it is not the migrants who benefit from such change. We have to try to strike a balance between clear rules that are clearly applied and discretion, accepting that discretion brings a degree of subjectivity into the system. That is the balance that we have tried to strike in framing the rules.
	When we introduce the points system, we will be seeking to replace the discretion that an immigration officer has in judging somebody's intention and their intention to obey the rules and leave. We have always considered previous breaches of immigration laws when considering whether to let somebody into the UK. However, in the past those powers have been discretionary powers that have allowed us to refuse people who have not complied with the rules when they were last here. I am not sure that that blanket discretion is right. I would prefer a system with clearer rules, so that migrants are aware of the penalties that apply if they overstay or breach the rules that are still in the Immigration Act 1971. That is why we have sought to introduce a system of blanket bans for those who breach the rules. We have sought to reserve the toughest rules for those who have cost the taxpayer the most money.
	It is also important that there should be sanctions for deception. People need to take responsibility for the applications that are submitted in their names, subject to the caveat that I am about to add. There must also be quite strict tests for what we judge to be falsified documents. It is possible for people to make honest mistakes, and it is important that the system should be able to accommodate them as honest mistakes. None the less, deception must carry a sanction.
	I will not rehearse the automatic provisions that we are proposing in the rules, because hon. Members are already familiar with them. I will just add one direct answer to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), however. It is important that people who have left the country at public expense should have the opportunity to come back into the country in due course, but it is only reasonable that we should ask them to pay back any costs incurred by the taxpayer before we allow them back in. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to learn that I hope that this will be among the proposals in the legislation that I hope to bring forward. I also hope to publish the Bill in draft form, before we bring it anywhere near the House in a formal sense, so there will be ample opportunity over the long summer months to study this question in depth, and to check whether we have got it right or wrong.

Simon Hughes: I do not dissent at all from the proposition that the Minister has just put to us. On his earlier point, does he accept that there is a difference between an adult who acts improperly and a minorsomebody under 18on whose behalf the conduct has been carried out? Such young people would be the innocent victims of other people's arrangements.

Liam Byrne: I absolutely accept that, and I shall spell that out further in a moment.
	I want to make a number of changes in the light of some of the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members this evening. I would like to put on record my thanks not only to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who has discussed some of these issues with me in the past, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who have gone to some length to tell me where I have got things wrong and helped me to reshape the amendments that I shall now propose.
	I said at the beginning of my speech that we needed to try to balance the application of clear rulesand the elimination of subjectivitywith an element of discretion. There is more room for discretion than was suggested in the concession that was announced by my noble Friend Lord Bassam in another place. I am announcing two further reforms this evening, and I want to add one clarification.
	First, we will not automatically refuse applications from people applying to join their family permanently in the UKthat is to say, those applying for visas as a spouse, civil partner or unmarried or same-sex partner under paragraphs 281 or 295A of the immigration rules; a fiance or proposed civil partner, as set out in paragraph 290 of the rules; a parent, grandparent or other dependent relative, as set out in paragraph 317; a person exercising rights of access to a child, as set out in paragraph 246; or a spouse, civil partner or unmarried or same-sex partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection, as set out in paragraphs 352A, 352AA, 352FA and 352FD. Following some of the comments made by hon. Members this evening, I will of course check to see whether we have cast the scope of those exceptions correctly, but my initial analysis is that that is where the discretion should apply.
	Secondly, we will not automatically refuse anyone who is under the age of 18 at the time of the breach of the immigration rules. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North spoke powerfully on this subject, as did the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. That case has been well made.
	The clarification that I want to make underlines comments that I have made to the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in the past that there should be a carve-out for victims of trafficking. We will put that into effect when we have ratified the Council of Europe's convention on trafficking.

Damian Green: rose

Liam Byrne: There are two caveats that I wish to add, but before I do so, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Damian Green: I am glad that the Minister brought up the subject of ratification. His point that the Government were going to ratify was welcome, but will he give us some indication of when that might be?

Liam Byrne: I have nothing further to add to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in the House not too long ago.

Christopher Huhne: In the light of his helpful remarks, will the Minister clarify whether any cases falling in the period before ratification will be subject to discretion in the same way as he outlined for those under the age of 18?

Liam Byrne: I will take the advice of my lawyers on that point first, if I may, and write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the position.
	As to the caveats, this does not mean that people who need to go home and reapply will automatically get in; they will still need to meet the requirements set out in the immigration rules and they may be refused if they have contrived in a significant way to frustrate those rules. Nor is it or can it be a green light for the groups I have mentioned to deliberately overstay. We need to bring forward fresh proposals to ensure that there are consequences for these actions.
	Suggestions have been made to me. Obviously, the need to go home and apply for entry clearances is one sanction, and other opportunities are presented in our Green Paper The Path to Citizenship. For example, we may, because we could, make those who have breached immigration rules wait slightly longer before they become citizens, but I do not want to go into detail on that proposal this evening. I simply want to flag it up for the House's attention in order to illustrate the wider point: we must have sanctions for those who overstay. These changes will have immediate effect as a concession and will be added to the immigration rules at the first opportunity.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh will recognise the benefits of some of the changes announced this evening, and indeed the balance that we are trying to draw between the elimination of subjectivity in decision making on the one hand and the need for discretion on the other.

Christopher Huhne: With the leave of the House, I will wind up the debate. I thank the Minister for his constructive response. I have been impressed this evening, as I was when we debated the points-based system, with the measured and rational way in which the Minister approaches these matters. It is slightly unfortunate that, given that these rules have already entered into force, this is somewhat late in the day.  [Interruption.] It is late in every sense, both this evening and for the rules.
	The Minister's assurances on families and particularly those under the age of 18 relate to essential changes to the rules originally put forward by his Department. I am still concerned about the transition from the current situation. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), we are unfortunately debating matters that have already become law, as a result, in my view, of an unfortunate procedural lapse of this House [Interruption.] It may be a normal lapse, but it is still a lapse and it definitely needs to be put right.
	I am concerned that before the changes outlined by the Minister can come into effect, there will be a number of cases that fall between the two stools. I would like to know, if possible before we have to vote in the deferred Division tomorrow, whether these matters can be dealt with without leading to serious problems. If the Minister proceeds with the changes and if there is no transitional problem of the sort that I am concerned about, I will very much welcome this exceptionally adroit U-turnthe Government's second today, following the Chancellor's U-turn on compensation for those caught up in the doubling of the 10p tax rate. That reminds me that the diet of our own words is often, for a professional politician, one of the most nutritious available. I commend it to the Minister, who has clearly had his fill this evening.
	 Question put

Hon. Members: No.
	 Division deferred till Wednesday  14 May , pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions).

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Local Government

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)  (Delegated Legislation Committees),
	That the draft Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 1st April, be approved .[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	 Division deferred till Wednesday  14 May , pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 6 and 7 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Animals

That the draft Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 2008 (S.I., 2008, No. 1146), dated 21st April 2008, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Committees),

Financial Management

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7210/08 and Addendum 1, Commission Report, Member States' replies to the Court of Auditors' 2006 Annual Report; and supports the Government's promotion of measures to improve the management of EC Budget funds across the EU. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.

DRIVING STANDARDS AGENCY

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

David Heath: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the Driving Standards Agency and its approach to the closure of driving test centres. I am particularly glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), here to reply. I am not sure how he drew the short straw of replying at this time of night to a debate on a subject for which he does not have direct responsibility, but it gives me the opportunity to remind him that he has made a commitment to come and see what I want done on the A303. We arranged a date and then he was told by his Whips that he was not to come. I hope that he will be able to honour that commitment at some stage in the near future.
	I am also glad that the Minister is here because the last time he deputised for his ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), it was on the same issue: the closure of driving test centres. The more I have looked into this subject, the more I have realised that we talking about not a local issue for me, but a national issue that is affecting lots of right hon. and hon. Members.
	I want to touch briefly on motorcycle testing, and then spend most of my time talking about the closure of the Trowbridge driving test centre, which is not in my constituency, but in that of the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber. I urge the Minister, if he has copious notes on the benefits of the new multipurpose driving test centre, to please put them aside. I have read them. I know why the Government are introducing the multipurpose centres and about the legislative impetus for that. I think I even recognise that there are advantages to the proposals.
	My argument is simple: the Driving Standards Agency has woefully underprovided in the west country. When the Minister visits me, he will recognise just how big the south-west peninsula is. The region is the size of Belgium, which is the internationally recognised unit of measurement for an area. He will realise that the proposal, as revealed in a parliamentary answer on 5 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), for just two multipurpose driving test centres in the whole of the west countryone in Exeter and one in Gloucesterfrom October this year, when the new motorcycle testing regime comes into effect, is frankly absurd. For my constituents, neither Exeter nor Gloucester is any more friendly and useful to them in terms of distance than London might be. It is a ridiculously distant area for them to have to travel to. I note from the Minister's previous comments and those from others that the intention is that most motorcycle drivers should not have to travel more than 45 minutes or 20 miles to get to their test centre. For us in the west country, the journey will take at least an hour and a half each way. It is a distance of 50 miles or more. I do not think that that constitutes an appropriate service for my constituents.

Andrew Murrison: On Friday I made the journey from Warminster to Chippenham. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that his Conservative opponent made a similar journey from Frome to Chippenham. Both journeys took well over an hour on a good day, and that does not allow for people who come from places outside the main towns in our area.

David Heath: Precisely. The hon. Gentleman brings me to the subject that I want to spend most of my time discussing: the closure of the Trowbridge driving test centre in his area, and the relocation of the tests to Chippenham. I note all the rhetoric from the Driving Standards Agency about motorcycle tests, and such statements as
	The centres need to be located in areas with easy access to the regional road network and within a short travelling time of a variety of road conditions.
	When I compare that with practice, however, I cannot reconcile the two statements.
	Following points that I raised about the issue during business questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), wrote me a letter. I do not know whether the information that he was given is entirely wrong or whether there has been a massaging of the information so that it fits the criteria, but he wrote:
	DSA has always been committed to providing tests to candidates living in rural and semi-rural locations.
	That is good news which I would applaud, but the letter continued
	The nearest alternative site
	to Trowbridge, that is
	is at Chippenham which is within the 20 mile travel distance criterion for the Trowbridge and Frome area.
	That statement is wholly incorrect, and I shall return to it in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Westbury and I recently joined a motorcade of driving instructors at the Trowbridge test centre. The people who know best about thisthe driving instructorsare unanimous in their view that this is an entirely retrograde step, not just for themselves and their businesses but for the people whom they instruct.
	Let me give some of the reasons why it is not appropriate to close the Trowbridge centre and move the business to Chippenham. As the hon. Member for Westbury pointed out, the principal reason is distance. Theoretically, there is a 20-mile maximum for most people to travel to their nearest driving test centre. Indeed, it has been suggested that the Driving Standards Agency's own published code of practice on written consultations relating to driving test centres states that if the distance is more than 20 miles, there will be a formal consultation on any planned procedure.
	I wanted to look that up. I found a written response by the Minister to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), which set out the basis of the code of practice and gave a helpful web connection. When I pressed the button I found that the site, which showed the consultation papers, no longer exists, so I am still in the dark about the precise terms of the code. However, I am led to believe that the distance is supposed to be a maximum of 20 miles.
	I accept that the distance from Trowbridge to Chippenham is within the 20-mile limit, but Trowbridge test centre does not just serve Trowbridge. It serves the whole of west Wiltshire and the whole of north-east Somerset, because there are no other test centres in the vicinity. Warminster, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westbury, is more than 20 miles from Chippenham. Frome, the major town in my constituency, is 25 miles away, and the journey takes some time. I looked up my village, which is about six miles south of Frome. I have a personal interest: my son has just turned 17, has applied for a provisional licence, and will want to take a driving test. But according to the route planner the distance between my village and Chippenham is 30 miles, so the suggestion that people in my area are within 20 miles of Chippenham is simply incorrect.
	There are also several reasons why we should reject such a distance in any case. First, there is the matter of convenience. Not only does it take a long time to get from a home pick-up to Chippenham, but in the context of a driving lesson that distance extends what would be a one-hour driving lesson to, in the case of someone in the Frome area, a three-hour driving lesson. Not everybody can afford a three-hour driving lesson. Not everyone has enough time in their day to spend three hours on itthe best part of an hour in getting there, an hour's lesson and then the best part of an hour in getting back. It is not convenient.
	Then there are the costs. I have a quotation from  The Wiltshire Times. A driving instructor, Mr. Roger Brunt from Southwick, says:
	Basically it will cost the client about 200 extra to drive as it takes about half an hour to get to Chippenham from Trowbridge and half an hour back.
	For my constituents in Frome, the sum would be twice that; they would have to pay an extra 400 in order to pass the test.
	There is also the environmental footprint. In terms of other Government policies, it does not make sense to extend driving times, and purely for the convenience of driving test centres rather than their users.
	There is also the disincentive issue. That worries me greatly, particularly the disincentive to take a motorcycle test. They will either continue to drive with L-plates or they will drive illegally and not take the test. Is that what we want to promote? Do the Government intend to discourage people from becoming fully proficient drivers who have passed their test? I hope that that is not the case.
	Another point about convenience is that Chippenham has only four parking bays, which is hardly great if we are to more than double the business at Chippenham. It does not make sense. I am greatly concerned that this will be a retrograde step.
	Is this necessary? No, it is not. I have a letter from Graham Payne, leader of West Wiltshire district council, who wrote to thank me for my support in the fight to retain the driving centre. He gave me a copy of the letter he wrote to the Driving Standards Agency, in which he makes it plain that:
	As landlord, West Wiltshire District Council is quite happy to continue the lease for the driving centre premises after the break point in September.
	So there is no necessity for the DSA to close this centre.
	I am left with the view that it is being closed for reasons of administrative convenience, not for the convenience of people who want to learn to drive, and that it will lead to huge extra costs and inconvenience for people in my constituency who want to learn to drive. I am sorry, but I just do not accept the view expressed by the Minister and Rosemary Thew, the chief executive of the DSA, that it is quite unnecessary to practise on test routes. That is not the experience of any instructor or of anyone who has ever learned to drive.
	I note that the Wessex Association of Driving Instructors invited Ms Thew and the Secretary of State to come to Chippenham and to take a test unsighted, as it were, of local driving conditions and the local area, and to see if they passed. Unhappily, they did not accept the challenge. We all accept that we are expected to learn to drive in all conditions, but we do not go to take a test without first familiarising ourselves with the area in which it will take place. That is axiomatic.

Andrew Murrison: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Chippenham is not exactly easy terrain for those who do not know the lie of the land. He is right to say that the driving test is taken on the basis that the person involved does not necessarily have any familiarity with the stretch of road used, but people who are familiar with Chippenham are clearly at a distinct advantage in comparison with my constituents and those of the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that if the change goes ahead, people in, for example, Frome and Warminster will feel obliged to have at least one or twoextra trips and they are probably fourhour round trips to Chippenham?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. Shall I tell him a secret? People from Frome do not go to Chippenham, because there is no reason for them to do so. Chippenham is in a different county, it is not a centre for shopping for us, it is not a regional centre in any way and it is not a place to which we go. Therefore, Chippenham will be entirely alien to most people in the Frome area who are learning to driveall those many people who have been completely disregarded in the proposals being introduced by the Driving Standards Agency.
	I shall finish with some questions that I would like the Minister to answer. Given these apparently spontaneous closures of driving test centres around the country, is there a plan in the hands of the DSA for driving test centre closures? Has it been published? Do Ministers have sight of it? If so, on what basis is it constructed, and over what period was it consulted upon? While we are dealing with consultation, may I ask how is it that no formal consultation took place in accordance with the criteria established by the DSA on a move that will mean that many people will be more than 20 miles from their nearest driving test centre?
	It is said, even in the ministerial letter to which I have referred, that most people in the Trowbridge and Frome area will be within the 20-mile area, but that is not the case. Most people will not be within that area, and if the DSA believes otherwise, let it prove it. Let it show us the details on the number of people who currently use the Trowbridge centre who will be within the 20-mile area for Chippenham. If most people are not within that area, can they please have the full consultation to which I think we are entitled?
	Until now, the DSA has refused to give any assurances that the Chippenham centre, in turn, is safe from closure at some future point. If the Trowbridge centre is to close, can we be assured that the Chippenham centre, at least, will remain open? Or is the next move that we will be expected to travel to Bristol, down to Exeter or up to Gloucesterto the multipurpose test centres, where the motorcycle testing is to take place?
	What this exercise betrays all the way through is a lack of regard for the customer, for the client and for the public. The DSA is arranging things in order to minimise its overheads and to run what it considers to be the most efficient system of providing driving test centres without for one moment thinking about those of us who live not in big cities but in the gaps between. We are not apparently to be catered for at all. I cannot imagine why it is felt appropriate for there to be no driving test centre in the whole of the Mendip area, in the whole of the west Wiltshire area and in the whole of the Bath and north-east Somerset area. That is the proposal being put before us by the DSA. It is apparently going ahead irrespective of what local people say, irrespective of the representations that have been made and with no attempt at consultation. I do not believe that that is fair, and I would like the Minister to talk to the DSA, to find out what the real rationale is and, if possible, to reverse the decision that has apparently been taken with so little thought for the interests of the local community.

Tom Harris: I begin by offering apologies on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is detained on important constituency business.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate on what is clearly an important issue to him and his constituents. In response to his request, I will of course honour my commitment to visit his constituency at an early opportunitythis time, I hope, without interference from the very helpful Government Whips.
	Despite the hon. Gentleman's exhortations, it is important to set out the context of recent and proposed changes to the delivery of driving tests, because without that context many of his criticisms and observations would go unanswered. European Union legislation on driving licences, agreed in 2000, set higher minimum requirements for driving tests. The higher standards are intended to ensure that the matters assessed in the theory and practical tests are relevant to modern driving conditions.
	Those new EU standards have introduced extra and more demanding special manoeuvres that must be included in every practical motorcycling test undertaken in Great Britain from September 2008. One of the new requirements adds a higher-speed emergency braking manoeuvre to the motorcycling test. That must be conducted at no less than 50 kph, which is equivalent to 31 mph.
	There are overwhelming road safety objections to conducting a higher-speed emergency braking exercise where there might be pedestrians or other traffic. Ministers therefore asked the Driving Standards Agency, which is responsible for delivering the driving and riding test in Great Britain, to explore delivery of those manoeuvres from off-road testing areas free of other traffic. The new EU standards support our domestic strategy for reducing road casualties, Tomorrow's roadssafer for everyone.
	Introduced in 2000, the strategy set some challenging targets for reducing the number of road casualties. By 2010, we want to reduce by 40 per cent. the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads and to reduce by 10 per cent. the number of slight casualties, compared to the 1994 to 1998 average.
	Motorcycling is becoming increasingly popular. More people are using motorcycles and mopeds to beat congestion and for leisure. We recognise that motorcycling has a role to play in transport as a whole. Our aim is to facilitate motorcycling as a travel choice within a safe and sustainable transport framework. To that end, in 2005 we published our motorcycling strategy in partnership with motorcycling and other interests.
	Sadly, the downside to all that is that motorcyclists represent a large proportion of road casualties. They make up about 1 per cent. of road traffic but suffer about 20 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries. Although the overall number of road casualties is falling, the number of deaths among motorcyclists is increasing. That is a matter of considerable concern for the Government and for Members on both sides of the House.
	The road safety strategy gave improvements to driver training and testing an important role in producing safer drivers and riders, and identified European developments as a factor in future changes to the driving test. For example, we believe that the changes to the motorcycle practical test will contribute to a reduction in motorcyclist casualty rates.
	The proposals for the implementation of the new EU driving test requirements were the subject of public consultation in December 2002. Consultees were offered the opportunity to comment on a number of service delivery options. They showed a preference for a single practical test with off-road testing of special manoeuvres, including the higher-speed emergency braking exercise, taking place immediately before the general on-road riding assessment. That significantly reduces the safety risks of on-road testing while addressing the cost and access concerns raised by some consultees. Ministers decided to implement the new requirements in the way that most consultees preferred.
	To facilitate delivery of the new manoeuvres, the DSA identified a need to develop a national network of driving test centres, based on an updated design with the appropriate facilities to conduct all the special manoeuvres. To exploit the value of the investment in those new centres, the DSA has decided that, wherever possible, they will be multipurpose test centres. In addition to the practical motorcycling test, they will be utilised to deliver other types of practical test for learner car, lorry and bus drivers. When not being used for tests, the DSA hopes to make the off-road test facilities available for training purposes.
	This point refers to something that the hon. Gentleman mentioned repeatedly: the intention is that mostnot allmotorcycle test candidates should be able to reach an MPTC centre within 45 minutes, travelling no more than 20 miles. I cannot have a map included in the  Official Report, but, after the debate, I will be more than happy to share with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) a useful map showing exactly what the demand is among their constituents for testing at Chippenham.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said in his closing remarks that people in Frome do not go to ChippenhamI think he was talking specifically about driving testing. In fact, the map clearly shows that there was considerable demand among his constituents for testing at Chippenham even before the proposed closure at Trowbridge. It is not a matter of opinion, but simply a matter of reading out the statistics showing the number of his constituents who already opt to be tested at Chippenham. I am more than happy to share that information with him after the debate.
	We have concluded that between 40 and 50 multipurpose driving test centres would be required to meet the service standard criteria. However, to maximise population coverage and minimise the number of candidates who have to travel for more than 45 minutes or further than 20 miles, we are seeking to develop about 60 multipurpose test centres. I want to emphasise that we are doing so in order to minimise the number of candidates who have to travel for more than 45 minutes or 20 miles, not to reduce that number to zero.
	As the DSA did not own or lease any sites that could provide a sufficient area of hard standing upon which to undertake the new manoeuvres, a programme of land acquisition and construction was initiated in 2005. Since December 2005, the DSA has acquired 41 sites. In addition to allowing the DSA to maximise the use of the MPTCs by conducting car, lorry and bus tests from them, those sites will offer improved accommodation and facilities for customers and staff. As well as being fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the new centres will support the Government's wider sustainability agenda.
	The provision of the MPTCs does not come cheap. The final cost will be in the region of 71 million. That cost will largely be recovered through increased fees paid by driving test candidates. If those fee increases are to be kept to a minimum, the DSA must continue to seek efficiencies in the way it conducts its business. That includes reviewing existing driving test centre provision to ensure that while the service standard is maintained, there is no wasteful over-provision of facilities.
	The service standard for car practical driving test centre provision is based on population density. Where population density is between 101 and 1,249 people per square kilometre, candidates should not have to travel more than 20 miles to a test centre. Where the density is less than 101, the distance to a test centre should be no more than 30 miles. The service standard applying to the Trowbridge area is that candidates should not have to travel more than 20 miles.
	The September 2008 lease break for the premises occupied by the Trowbridge driving test centre provides an opportunity to reconsider service provision in the area it serves. Most customers who attend the Trowbridge driving test centre will have access to alternative facilities at Chippenham and Bristol, Brislington. Both centres are within 20 miles of Trowbridge, although I accept that the Bristol centre is almost exactly 20 miles away. The centres have the capacity to absorb the demand from Trowbridge without compromising waiting time targets.
	The closure of Trowbridge driving test centre will result in savings of around 14,000 a year. Equally importantly, the closure will not compromise the DSA's service standard criteria. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the difficulty, in rural areas, of striking the right balance between the provision of a satisfactory level of public service and the cost that service incurs. In closing the Trowbridge driving test centre, I believe the DSA has struck a sensible balance. Although I understand the natural desire to practise driving in the area close to the test centre, I am not persuaded that it is necessarily a sound argument for deciding where to locate driving test centres.

David Heath: We have pinned down the argument. Trowbridge is being closed in order to save money in order to equip multipurpose test centres that will be an hour and a half away for my constituents. That does not seem a terribly good deal. Is the Minister really saying that the majority of people who use the Trowbridge test centre will be within 20 miles of Chippenham? I am not asking whether Trowbridge is within 20 miles of Chippenham, but whether the majority of people who use that test centre will be.

Tom Harris: I would not deviate from the phraseology that I have already used. Most people who use Trowbridge should not have to travel more than 20 miles to get to an alternative test centre
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.